“Stay Home” – Immigration Advertisement

The German media report the European Union and Switzerland have started a television, radio and poster campaign in African countries to keep potential illegal migrants from trying to immigrate to Europe.

 

Switzerland’s migration authority initiated and directed the campaign, which has included producing a promotional film during the past few months meant to scare away potential illegal immigrants, according to German business daily Handelsblatt.

 

The paper reported on Monday, Nov. 26, that a spokesperson for Switzerland’s Federal Migration Office in Berne confirmed the ad was being shown on television in Cameroon and Nigeria, and may soon be aired in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

 

The Geneva-based International Organization for Migration (IOM) said it had actually produced the campaign, which was funded by the Swiss migration office.

 

The aim of the campaign is to “give a more balanced view of irregular migration networks,” IOM spokesman Jean-Philippe Chauzy told AFP news agency.

 

Some African migrants pay thousands of dollars to smuggling networks who promise them that life in Switzerland or other European countries will be easy, without warning them of the risks of exploitation, poverty and deportation they will face, Chauzy said.

 

Many others die in their attempts to flee African countries by water.

 

“Stay home, since Europe is not the continent of milk and honey. No one’s waiting for you there,” Handelsblatt summarized the message of the film to be. “Fleeing does not mean starting a new life,” the last sentence of the film states. >>MORE

Advertisements

MSM’s Spin On Immigration

By John Milne

Immigration into Britain (or any Western country) may now never be stopped, or even controlled, because the politicians, the only people who can pass laws on the subject, have lost too much power and influence. In The New Élites, George Walden maintains that Britain is now in a Soviet-type grip of professional egalitarians whose power base lies in commerce, culture and the media. They can now control virtually all of public life. They are extremely mediocre in their abilities, and indeed brag about their ordinariness, but behind their anti-elitist rhetoric lies the old urge to dominate which is as powerful as that of their aristocratic forebears.

Above all, they remain left-liberal and internationalist. Although Walden is careful not to mention it, it is clear that inverted snobbery and their “tolerance of foreigners which is regarded as a sign of superiority”, as he puts it, means that pro-immigrant sentiment will continue to be peddled by the élites.

As Walden points out, élites have always dominated mass societies, and there is a large academic literature on the subject. But in the past there was always a struggle between competing élites with opposing ideas. Britain’s new élites, instead, are virtually totalitarian. No politicians of any party would now dare to propose openly to withdraw from the Geneva Refugee Convention, which has outlived its usefulness and is actually harming this country, because the new élites would shout them down.

Further, the executive branch, in particular the immigration authorities, can do nothing to halt immigration unless there is a change of law initiated by the politicians. Similarly, the lawyers in the immigration appellate system, which is now a growing and monolithic money-spinner for many of them, have to tolerate perjury in court by illegal immigrants – whom they know to be lying – and, having refused them asylum, still allow them to stay in Britain because they know that the authorities are simply incapable of removing them in the numbers required.

Decline in standards

The greatest present danger is the decline in journalistic standards, which the new élites have brought about. In earlier times, news reporters were taught not to comment in their copy, to be balanced and fair-minded. Not any more. The present mix of spin, personally biased opinion, public relations chat and celebrity gossip – often all crammed into one article – is now demanded of journalists by their paymasters. In the process they have resorted to lies and half-lies because they know they can get away with them if they express left-liberal opinions. They continually use pejorative adjectives when it comes to describing the Right – again because it is expected of them. Indeed they fear for their jobs if they fail in this regard. They are no longer journalists but Soviet-type propagandists. This is why the Right is always termed ‘extreme’, but never the Left.

Journalists’ names for parties

Journalists will often describe parties such as the BNP, or Austria’s Freedom Party, as ‘anti-immigrant’ but will not at the same time say that the other parties are ‘pro-immigrant’. They will increasingly point to the unpleasant consequences of race riots in Britain, but will not point to their cause: unbridled immigration. They will sometimes approve of attempts to remove illegal immigrants, but are only too ready to publish pictures of weeping immigrant children and their mothers being forced onto ships and planes against their will, because their editors demand a more sentimental and ‘caring’ approach to news stories.

By using non-neutral language, they print glaring paradoxes. An article in the national press that describes an immigrant borough as ‘vibrant’, or one which ‘celebrates diversity’, will be printed alongside stories about tribal butchery in Africa or communal murders in India.

Journalists used also to be warned about using non-sequiturs – stating facts but drawing incorrect conclusions from them. A classic non-sequitur says that ‘anti-immigration’ parties promote ‘hate’ because, as most immigrants are coloured, white nationalist parties must therefore “hate coloured people” everywhere in the world. What is a legitimate criticism of policy becomes instead a personal attack on individual black people in Britain. They pretend not to see the difference between one stance and another.

They write emotively and unthinkingly, and seem fearful and confused. Any talk of controlling immigration will stir up trouble in immigrant communities, they maintain. They assume that ethnic minorities themselves want immigration to continue ad infinitum, so they avoid publishing criticism of immigration policies for fear of giving offence – offence, that is, to the ethnic minorities, not the British host population.

This is partly because they appear not to know what being British is. They have gratuitously redefined Britain as some kind of off-shore Hong Kong, without reference to what the general public, academics and even the politicians themselves believe to be the true reality. Virtually none of the intellectuals who are supposed to be monitoring British society will use the term ‘multi-culturalism’ voluntarily, because it is not true within its own terms, or is known to be used as a euphemism for multi-racialism in certain urban areas.

Non-recognition

‘Multi-culturalism’ means that the inhabitants of one country have a knowledge of, and respect for, the other cultures they see around them. Nothing remotely like this happens in Britain, and the sociologists know it. If local people cannot even recognise the foreign languages spoken in their street or on the bus, let alone understand them, then Britain cannot be a ‘multi-cultural society’.

Even if the above were true – in the sense of Britain being a patchwork quilt of different languages and races – this admission would have a dramatic impact upon academic disciplines. Professors would have to explain why this had happened, and why they were unable to predict it would happen. Sociologists who, up to 25 years ago, were writing about mods and rockers and working-class voting patterns, are now supposed to be discussing anthropology instead: the study of human tribes, languages and races – but all mysteriously to be found co-existing peacefully in Britain! Most of their earlier theories would thus have to be chucked out.

The truth is that the growing cultural and linguistic chaos in this country, which the media élite gloss over, adversely impacts upon the immigrants themselves. We don’t like it, of course; on the other hand, it is they who are ‘multi-cultural’, not we. The Jamaicans, looking like Africans, are now having to live in London streets side by side with real Africans, and the Whites can’t tell the difference.

Similarly, the post-war Anglo-Indians are now having to rub shoulders not just with the white British, but with other Indians belonging to castes they would not normally wish to live next to if they were back in India. There is even less ‘multi-culturalism’ going on between Blacks and Browns. Their one common denominator was the Commonwealth, but now all the talk is about ‘Europe’, and immigrants are no more European than they are British.

What is often forgotten is the vast architectural heritage into which the immigrants have come. Each street, borough and town in Britain was built by the British. Each, with just a tiny few exceptions, is named after local history, a history of the British. This is bound to affect the self-esteem of the minorities: everyone wants to have a homeland they can call their own, and have a pride in their own culture and achievements. You can’t expect diasporas to have a pride in someone else’s culture or history. America was deliberately created as a receptacle for diasporas, and the new in-comers could then create a new pride in ‘America’ (which was named not after a racial group but after an immigrant called Amerigo).

Our increasing multi-racialism will itself become a kind of self-imposed tyranny, and in the end our institutions will be utterly unreformable. One of the great ironies of our time is that Eastern Europe, since the collapse of communism, is now freer than the West. Today it is in the West that criticism of racial or historical dogma can end the career of a scholar or politician, and even send him to prison. By contrast, in Eastern Europe and Russia, now the last enclaves of free white people, one can find plenty of books about race or historical revisionism. The warning is clear: Liberalism could well collapse like communism did, and as suddenly. To avoid this, the new élites themselves will have to make a smart move to the Right.

ALSO READ:

WHITE People – An Endangered Species

Vancouver Hires On Ethnicity

View on Vancouver on October 1, 2005
VANCOUVER, British Columbia

By Dan Murray

……..a significant number of Vancouver (British Columbia) Police retired in order to avoid cuts to their pensions. In announcing these retirements, the Vancouver Police Chief (in 2004) stated that a large number of replacements would soon have to be hired. At the same time, he said that the new people to be hired should reflect the current ethnic make-up of the city.

The Vancouver Chief of Police is not the only public official to make such statements. Prominent officials in other large cities, at Canada‘s crown corporations and at both the federal and provincial levels have said something similar about their hiring policies. The big question Canadians have to ask is, “Does this policy of reflecting ethnic composition make any sense?”

Well, let’s consider an employment line-up of 80 people who have been waiting in line for a limited number of job openings. These 80 will represent the approximately 2 million unemployed Canadians. Suppose another 20 people suddenly arrive. These 20 represent recently-arrived immigrants. Most Canadians would say that those 20 new arrivals should get in line behind the 80 who have been there for some time. Most Canadians would say that this would be the fair thing to do.

However, the Vancouver Chief of Police and others are saying that the new arrivals should not have to go to the end of the line, but should be put at or near the front of the line and given preference over those who have been waiting for their chance to get employment. The Chief’s (and others’) “reasoning”, if it can be called that, is that the new workforce should consist of both the new arrivals and those standing in line for a long time.

Most Canadians would say that such thinking was absurd. They would also become very angry at the “new and old” rationalization and at the injustice done to the people waiting in line. Yet, led by a number of Canadians proclaiming that new arrivals to Canada are automatically entitled to an instantaneous share of Canada’s resources, absolutely absurd hiring policies such as the one advocating that employment reflect ethnic composition have become common.

Not a week goes by without some officials trying to gain some political capital by saying they are in favour of such a policy or that they are “proud” that their agency or level of government has instituted such a (diversity) policy.

Like most unemployed, Canada’s unemployed are extremely vulnerable and often silent. They should be treated with respect, dignity and fairness, yet Canada’s immigration policies treat them with disrespect, contempt and injustice. Literally hundreds of thousands of (immigrant) workers have recently arrived in Canada, even though Canada had little need for many of them, a sad state of affairs all by itself.. The advocates of “ethnic composition hiring” have poured out their sympathies on these new people and have advocated the fast-tracking of the new arrivals’ credentials and the institution of other measures to see that these people become employed. Simultaneously, these advocates imply that Canada’s own unemployed are disposable and unworthy of consideration.

Any society and all individuals who allow such employment policies to continue will almost certainly harvest the rage that is building. Those who champion such policies have to take responsibility for the misery they are creating. The prudent and the just will do what they can to stop the injustice. >>Source

[…] Immigration Watch Canada

ALSO READ:

Is Burlington TOO White?

WHITE Males Under Attack

RACE-Based Police Hiring Policies

Visible Minorities Vs Invisible Victims

PHOTO: Who’s Missing In These Pictures?

The Myth of Labour Shortages

Ethical Change In Law Enforcement

….also these related articles:

“RACE Diversity” – The Con Game

Is Racial Diversity Good For Canada?

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

WHITE People – An Endangered Species

A White Racial Crisis

Embolden Minorities Eye Canada

What IS Multi-culturalism?

 

By Dan Murray

Let me tell you about a friend of mine. For the sake of privacy, I’ll call her Mary. She is a recent immigrant to Canada from the Philippines. There, she was a librarian. A few years ago, she decided she needed a change in her life. After talking with friends who were emigrating to Canada, she decided to pay a visit to Canadian immigration officials to inquire about moving here.

“You’re just the kind of person Canada needs–skilled, well-educated,” she was told. “There are lots of jobs for you.” Mary was elated. Within a few months, she had resigned from her job and was on a plane to Vancouver. She found a place to live, and soon made lots of friends in the Filipino groups that she met. Next, she began her search for the job that she had been told would be so easy to find.

This is where Mary’s story turns sour. She did manage to find one short-term contract librarian position, but when that ended, she found herself looking all over again. In the last two years, she’s managed to find a few things very unrelated to her field, but she’s come to realize that the message she was given by Canadian immigration officials was very unrealistic and, to put it more accurately, fraudulent.

Recently, she’s been re-training so that she can make herself more qualified for non-librarian employment. I happened to be enrolled in one of the UBC (University of British Columbia) courses she was taking. One day, I gave her a ride to class and we started talking about our instructor, a University of Toronto professor who had grown up in (the Canadian Province), New Brunswick. In talking to us one day, he mentioned that his background was Irish.

As we were driving, she commented on what the instructor had mentioned one day. “He said he was Irish,” Mary declared. When Mary said this, she really meant, “He’s like me. He’s an immigrant. Canada is a country of immigrants.” She had heard the latter statement many times and, like many new Canadians, had come to believe what she had heard. When I told her that the instructor really meant that he came from Irish ancestry and that his ancestors, like those of many Canadians, had probably come to New Brunswick almost 200 years ago, and that a separate culture had developed in Canada in those intervening years, I could tell from the look on her face that she was shocked and deflated.

Not only had she believed the immigration official but she had believed the messages fanned by Canada’s multiculturalists that had implied that Canada was like a blank slate, that it didn’t really have a history, that there really was no resident Canadian culture and that Canada was composed of many different ethnic groups—all just recently arrived—and that as a new arrival, she would fit in well and would be no different from the country full of other recent arrivals.

I felt and continue to feel sympathy for Mary. Like tens of thousands of other immigrants who have arrived in Canada in the last 15 years, she is a victim of the short-term electoral aspirations of a number of people in the Liberal Party of Canada who feel they can use the immigrant vote to win a significant number of seats. But I feel more sympathy for Canadian job-seeking victims of present Liberal immigration policies because Canadians are enduring and will continue to endure undetermined long-term employment losses precisely because of these policies.

What is the connection between Mary’s story and multiculturalism? As one observer of this subject has said, immigration is the oxygen that feeds the fires of multiculturalism. Without one another, the two would witheran event that many Canadians would like to see occur soon. But at the moment, the two are in full flame. What have they achieved?

Well, all of us will concede that some spice has been added to Canada. But what has been the price? Mary’s case outlines the deceit that has been practised on skilled immigrants. But it also reveals the insult given to Canadians. The multiculturalists have rushed to the aid of people like Mary with affirmative action programmes, trying to get public and private employers to hire immigrants because these immigrants make up a significant percentage of our population now. All Canadians have heard the following illogical statement from a number of public employers: “Well, we want to have our workforce reflect the ethnic composition of our community.” What this statement really means is that these employers want to move recent arrivals to the front of the employment line. Meanwhile, resident Canadians are supposed to go meekly to the back of this line. What Canadians in their right minds would ever want this?

This brings us to the real issue. Most Canadians assume that their government should be serving its own people. It is very clear that Canada’s immigration policies are in conflict with the employment aspirations of its own citizens. So, the first definition of multiculturalism I would give is this: it is a flowery-sounding deceit of both the people who have come here and of the people of Canada.

A second definition follows from the first. Multiculturalism is a euphemism for an attempt to intimidate the people of Canada into accepting people that it never really needed. It is non-Canadian-culturalism. It is an attempt to put itself above all other considerations, especially the informed interests of Canadians. Not only does it thwart the job-seeking of Canadians, it crowds and degrades the living space of Canadians -who live in the three major immigrant-receiving areas of Canada: Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. At a time when most Canadians are aware that the most basic science asserts that global population has to be stabilized and reduced, these three areas of Canada are growing at third-world rates. At a time when the effects of overuse of resources are appearing in the form of climate change here and all over the world, Canada is bringing in unprecedented numbers of people to consume more and more resources.

The government of Canada has never produced any rational evidence to justify its present immigration policies. What should Canada place first: irrational, ill-informed multiculturalist-immigration policies or its precious living spaces? The multiculturalists have had considerable success in bullying Canadians into accepting the idea that multiculturalism should take precedence over the livability of living space. To any sane, informed Canadian, this does not make sense.

In addition to being deceit and intimidation, multiculturalism is resurrected colonialism. The two main source areas of immigrants to Canada are China and India (and neighbours). The populations of these countries make up well over a third of the world’s 6 billion. Since the introduction of unprecedented 250,000+ immigration levels in the early 1990’s (and plans for 300,000+ in perpetuity), these two groups have quickly become the majority, for example, in several areas of the Lower Mainland of B.C. There is virtually an unlimited number of people in these two countries to continue the flood. (See Pop. Numbers below) Prominent members of these groups have declared that they will do everything they can to make sure that the flood continues. The multiculturalists defend what is happening by using the guilt card: they tell Canadians that we colonized Canada and displaced the aboriginal population, so what is wrong with two large ethnic groups doing the same to us? In other words, they tell Canadians that in order to make up for past guilt, Canadians must meekly accept this resurrected colonialism. Other groups have done the same thing here and in other parts of Canada.

The multiculturalists’ attitude, which implies that Canada is some partially-filled, acultural space waiting to be filled with infinite numbers of people, who will make infinite demands for equal ethnic treatment, has to be put into the nearest landfill where it belongs.The most direct way to achieve that goal is to return Canada’s immigration policy to the principle of economic and cultural absorptive capacity. In other words, when Canada has an economic need for immigrants, it will look for them. When it needs very few–as is certainly the case now–it will not look for them. As for cultural absorptive capacity, the Canadian government should never permit the inflow of immigrants to overwhelm the culture of resident Canadians. In summary, Canada will continue to admit some immigrants, but those numbers have to be reduced dramatically.

In this way, common sense will be restored to Canada’s immigration policies, the frustrations of immigrants like Mary will be reduced dramatically, the ambitions of Canadian job-seekers will be a primary goal of Canada’s government, Canadian culture will regain its self-respect and the people of Canada will re-assert their sovereignty over their own country. >>SOURCE

Population of CHINA 1,319,000,000

Population of INDIA1,136,000,000

Population of CANADA33,000,000

ALSO READ:

Racial Diversity – A CON Game

Importing Chinese Miners?

Hire Canadians First!

Labour Shortage MYTH

CANADIAN Border Madness

Immigration Reduces Income

WHITE People – An Endangered Species

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

Publisher’s Memo On Immigration

New Chinese Political Party In Canada

National Sovereignty In Trouble

By Daniel Sheehy

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is a busy guy these days securing our border with Mexico—at least that’s what the “mainstream media” wants Americans to think.

During President Bush’s tour of Yuma, Arizona on April 9, we were shown pictures of Bush and Chertoff posing in front of a Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle, implying that the Predator is being used along the border to catch illegal aliens.

Other pictures showed Bush pointing to fencing that has been erected at the border since he visited the same spot one year ago.

“This border is more secure, and America is safer as a result,” the president told several hundred border agents, National Guard personnel, and local law enforcement officials during his visit to Yuma. “I appreciate the hard work of Secretary Michael Chertoff.”

(Read about Bush’s April 9 tour of Yuma in, The One Hundred Year Fence, by Glenn Spencer, one of the people featured in my book, Fighting Immigration Anarchy: American Patriots Battle to Save the Nation. Apparently, a mere 2 ½ miles of double-layered fencing has been constructed along the border with Mexico since Congress approved and Bush signed into law The Secure Fence Act of 2006 just before the November election.)

On February 8, in a story titled Immigration drive kicks into high gear by Nicole Gaouette, the Los Angeles Times reported that Chertoff took “members of Congress on a helicopter tour of the southern U.S. border to promote the administration’s stepped-up enforcement measures.” Accompanying the story was a photo of Chertoff welding a chunk of fence along the Arizona-Mexico border.

These staged photos and appearances are part of a massive propaganda campaign to convince the American people that the border is, or soon will be, under control—so it is time to pass a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill, which is code for a massive new “guest-worker” program and an illegal-alien amnesty.

This is why we are increasingly hearing about federal authorities arresting “illegal immigrants” in various cities across the U.S. Of course, arresting a few dozen illegal aliens once a week is barely a drop in the bucket when there are more than 20 million in the U.S. and thousands flooding across the southern border every day. The arrests are not meant to fix the crisis, but just to give the impression that the government is cracking down. >>Continue Reading HERE

ALSO:

North America Driver’s License

North American Union

Borderless North America

New North American Currency

Erasing Our Border With The U.S.

Canada Welcomes Undesirables

By Les Blumenthal, Kansas City Star

[…]

Given Canada’s open immigration policies, terrorist organizations have established cells there seeking “safe havens, operational bases and attempting to gain access to the USA,” according to a 1998 report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The report said that more than 50 terrorist groups might be present, including Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Islamic groups from Iran and Algeria.

A 2006 report from the Nixon Center, a Washington, D.C., policy institute, quoted a senior FBI official as saying that Canada is the most worrisome terrorist point of entry and that al-Qaida training manuals advise terrorists to enter the U.S. from Canada.

The report concluded that “despite widespread alarms raised over terrorist infiltration from Mexico, we found no terrorist presence in Mexico and a number of Canadian-based terrorists who have entered the United States.”

And as security is ratcheted up along the nation’s southern border with Mexico, law enforcement officials up north fear that the bad guys—terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal aliens—may increasingly be headed [Canada’s] way.

[…]

Even senior Border Patrol officials concede that the heightened security on the Mexican border could spur new pressures up north.

“It’s logical they will look elsewhere,” said Ron Colburn, the deputy chief of Customs and Border Protection, of those trying to clandestinely enter the United States.

Nearly 12,000 federal agents patrol the U.S.-Mexican border, along with National Guard troops. Of the 6,000 agents expected to be added to the Border Patrol in the next year, most will be assigned to the southern border.

Along the northern (Canadian) border, which is twice as long, there are fewer than 1,000 agents.

[…]

In Derby Line, Vermont, the Haskell Free Library and Opera House straddles the border. The front door is in the United States. The checkout desk is in Canada. That could come to an end. Earlier this year, two vans carrying 21 illegal immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere were stopped in Derby Line.

Residents of North Dakota and Minnesota fear that their frigid winters may have frozen the motion detectors along their border with Canada. The border in some places is separated by nothing more than a broken fence. In one incident, a rancher on Montana’s desolate prairie stopped two Jamaicans dressed in T-shirts and shorts.

“It would be difficult to secure the (northern) border with the assets we have there now,” said Greg Kutz, a Government Accountability Office investigator and the author of a recent study that found terrorists carrying nuclear material could easily enter the United States from Canada.

[…] Full Article HERE

ALSO READ:

Windsor’s Border Is Wide Open

More Refugees To Support

600,000 “Refugees” Since 1987

Racial Gang Rapes

Violent Hispanic Gang In Canada

Illegal Aliens Kill Thousands Yearly (U.S.)

TRACKING SYSTEM – Illegal Alien Activity

Criminal Minds & Open Borders

High Cost Of Illegal Aliens

Illegal ‘Immigrants’ Don’t Come Cheap

Taboo News: Mass Immigration

Global Population Growth is Driven By Developing Countries.

Source: United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision (2007).

 

From: http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/

Is there something endemic in state broadcasting in the Anglophone world which makes it taboo to discuss the population question and to air views that are critical of immigration? If so, where is it coming from: the journalists, the presenters, the researchers, the producers or the administrators? Is state media more a captive of political correctness than the private media?

In attempting to answer some of these questions, it is useful to look at two fascinating accounts, one about the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC), another about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) and finally to summarize the disgraceful record of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

In “The Treason of the BBC” , the late Jack Parsons argued that “The BBC has been systematically excluding virtually all material on the question of basic population policy.” For example, BBC reporters allowed Beverly Hughes, a former Minister of Immigration, to “blandly repeat, unchallenged, the government’s mindless policy of continued mass immigration to meet the alleged needs of the economy.” Also, it granted a free pass to former Home Secretary Charles Clark to say that there were ‘no obvious limits’ to net migration and rapid growth. At the same time, the BBC did not question the fact that “our present government has adopted a policy (without discussion or mandate) of deliberately increasing our numbers by about one million every five years,” making Britain the fastest growing country in Europe with a population density almost twice that of China.

Parsons asks, “How can BBC claims about the carrying capacity of the prison system and its “overpopulation” be made so openly, so effortlessly, so devoid of fear and moral opprobrium, while not the slightest hint can ever be allowed to slip out vis a vis the vastly more important case of the carrying capacity and numbers of the nation as a whole?”

He accuses those who run the BBC of “colluding in a very Great Betrayal, fostering the myth that human numbers have so little consequence that there is no need to take them seriously.” “The charge I am leveling at all executive levels of the BBC as a corporate body concerns what I am convinced is coercive, institutionalized bias which for years has prevented virtually all BBC news of, and discussion about, a literally vital object, the long-term balance between human numbers, resources and the quality of life…; this was not always so, but has been the case for at least 15 years.”

The signs of population myopia were apparent to Parsons in 1967 when he asked the BBC why it was so concerned about the Tory Canyon Oil-Tanker Spill disaster, but so unconcerned about the doubling of the world’s population in 30 years. Since the early seventies, “a steady and insidious process among governing circles, opinion-formers, the greater bulk of the media, including the BBC, has built a powerful and near universal censorship, by consent…that the absolutely fundamental ecology question, the need for a sustainable balance between numbers and resources—is almost totally ignored. The sad corollary of this is that mass migration—since it has a major and obvious impact on the overall population situation—cannot be rationally discussed either.”

Parsons, in a letter to a BBC Complaints Unit, asks, “Dare one hope that, one of these days, someone in the higher echelons of the BBC will screw his/her courage to the sticking point and actually issue and follow through on a set of instructions that free the BBC—and hence the nation ­from this appalling and near-totally disabling taboo.” He is given to wonder “Why does this large, wealthy, powerful, highly prestigious institution…cringe so abjectly at the very idea of free speech in the realm of discourse?” And why the taboo? “Has there been an explicit but secret directive to all producers to steer clear of the subject? Has this policy been built up by means of nods, winks and frowns on high; or does it stem from tacit acceptance by all concerned at the prevailing orthodoxy in the wider society?”

According to Parsons, four things are needed to reform the BBC. Firstly, there needs to be major change in ‘media Zeitgeist’ (thinking) that will permit an open discussion about population. Secondly, the BBC needs to “stop cowering beneath its cloak of political correctness” and, by honest analysis, foster the emergence of a mature, ecologically informed electorate. Thirdly, the BBC needs to hire reporters who are population experts. “Some BBC presenters, who have an overweening confidence in their qualifications, start laying down the law on those population topics which are allowed a mention, and in the process frequently display their ignorance…They pick up and mindlessly repeat half-baked notions about alleged labour shortages and pension problems, and swallow hook, line and sinker any free-floating opinions about how much better things will continue to become as numbers inexorably swell.”

Fourthly, it would be nice if the BBC followed its own Producer Guidelines. “Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All BBC programmes and services should be open-minded, fair and show a respect for truth. No significant strand of thought should go unreflected or unrepresented at the BBC.”

Until then, however, its Motto will remain that of the Three allegedly Wise Monkeys: See no population problem! Hear no population problem! Speak no population problem!

Mark O’Connor, poet and one-time Vice-President of Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population (AESP, re-named SPA), has made a similar assessment of the ABC. In his upcoming book, “Overloading Australia”, O’Connor concedes that the ABC is critical to Australian democracy and is able to speak to the people—“and often does”. “But the ABC has in some parts of its news and current affairs sections failed to provide objectivity or fairness to portray debates or news coverage relating to population, immigration or economics.” It is living the Comfortable Lie: that growth is good and sustainable, and that the mass immigration that fuels it must continue. “The fact must be faced. There is something deeply wrong in some parts of it.”

But O’Connor is unable to locate precisely where the fault lies. Whether researchers withhold information from presenters, or presenters refuse to use the research provided to them, or whether producers, strategy planners or management dictate programming, is a question outside observers can’t answer. “But there certainly is a bias,” he asserts.

He offers some examples of this bias. During those years when Australia had the highest per capita immigrant intake of any country in the world, the ABC refused to challenge propagandists who illogically and brazenly claimed that Australia’s high immigration intake was “shamefully low” and “proof of racism”. In addition, the ABC collaborated with both the government and the opposition party to promote high immigration by ignoring inconvenient facts like the one about Australia’s high per capita immigrant intake and suppressing most of the debate. And while going after the jugular of the One Nation Party as if it were alone in its call for a zero net immigration policy, “among its many acts of censorship, ABC TV News suppressed the fact that the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Democrats (two other parties) had long been calling for zero net migration.”

O’Connor speculates as to why the ABC behaves in this manner. “The ABC’s failure through nearly three decades to deal with population issues ­the most important matter facing Australia today— may have less to do with individuals than with a pervasive institutional culture.” Nevertheless, “if there are such persons blocking the debate, then it is assuredly time they were persuaded to move on to other areas where their biases will do less harm.”

He concludes, “The ABC has a problem with its news service and current affairs programs. It may not be able to rectify past unfairness, but it needs urgently to offer guarantees that the censorship will cease, and that at least in future those who disagree with high immigration or with ‘birth-bribes’ will receive equal time on its programs.” New ‘balance and accountability’ guidelines announced by management in October of 2006 “will not address ABC News’ pro-growth, pro-natalist, pro-conventional economic views.”

Can what has so far been said of the BBC and the ABC be said of the CBC as well? In one word, yes, and more. While some regional centres have attempted to bring more balance to immigration issues, CBC Radio, especially the National centre in Toronto and the Vancouver centre, have emphatically not. In general, the CBC (like the ABC previously) has refused to engage the public on the two questions that critics keep asking: Why is the government importing more people per capita than any other country in the world? And what effect is this influx, which gives us the highest growth rate of any G8 nation, having on our economic, cultural and environmental health?

Timidity and cowardice are not the exclusive province of CBC journalists, but the fact is that only the private media outlets have on occasion exposed abuses of the immigration system and questioned the country’s high immigration intake. The CBC, on the other hand, has done what it can to promote mass immigration on the basis of its misinterpretation of its 1991 legislated mandate to promote “multiculturalism”. Somehow, CBC logic equates the stated “CBC Vision” (to reflect “the cultural diversity of our people”) with support for mass immigration. In addition, to the CBC, the promotion of a diversity of cultures displaces the promotion of a diversity of opinions.

Those very many Canadians who voice negative concerns about immigration are simply denied airtime by the people they subsidize. As Immigration Watch Canada has noted, the CBC sees no contradiction between holding out one hand to ask for public funding while clenching the other in a fist to drive into the mouth of the taxpayer who dares to challenge the CBC line on immigration. Furthermore, the CBC allows generous airtime and interviews with pro-immigration groups, so that they may in turn, as a quid pro quo, advertise for the non-commercial CBC. So to partiality and deceit, one can therefore add corruption to the list of CBC immigration vices.

So what then is the remedy? Suffice it to say that the CBC’s commitment to mass immigration and multiculturalism comes at the cost of balanced, honest journalism. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage can obviously rectify this situation by ordering the CBC executive to answer for this conflict of interest. It can further help by demanding that the CBC terminate the corporation’s corrupt arrangements with the immigration industry, its blatant pro-immigration advocacy and the employment of its employees who engage in it.

Such measures would seek not to curb journalistic freedom, but to end shameless CBC journalistic abuse—and return public broadcasting to the public. As with the BBC and ABC, our National Broadcaster should be offering a forum where indeed “no significant strand of thought should go unreflected or unrepresented”. The exclusion of topics or the shunning of voices should be foreign to its corporate culture and democratic mission.

The BBC, ABC and CBC conspiracy to silence critics of immigration and population growth has been an insult to democracy and to the public that has had to put up with it. The conspiracy has to end now.

ALSO READ:

Publisher’s Memo On Immigration

Mass Mind Control Through MSM

“News” Vs Propaganda

Turn Your Television OFF

Mass Media: Smoke & Mirrors

C.B.C. & The Immigration Question

 

“The goal of ABOLISHING the WHITE RACE is on its face SO DESIRABLE that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition, other than from committed white supremacists. Make no mistake about it, we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the WHITE RACE’ is destroyed – not ‘de-constructed’ but DESTROYED.”

Jewish studies professor, Dr Noel Ignatiev