The Multiculturalist Liberal believes that all cultures are equal except for his own, which is uniquely “wicked and imperialist”.
Assimilation in their view, would be another despicable instance of cultural imperialism—but, of course, it would also throw doubt upon their own world outlook, which they’ve adopted precisely to establish their very own superior [racist?] “broad-mindedness” and “tolerance”.
After all, my Indian medical students who know Shakespeare and speak what used to be called the King’s English, might suggest to the liberal mind that the very people whose culture he claims to defend often see great value in the culture he is defending them from, therefore his presuppositions are profoundly mistaken.
Keeping foreigners in cultural ghettos is thus a necessity for them, if they’re to preserve their self-regard. And it is not difficult to find bureaucratic entrepreneurs in every group (that is to say, the N.G.O. “community leaders”) whose personal interests coincide with their goals. There are fortunes to be made… even in a ghetto.
If all cultures are “equal”, then migration is itself a mystery since it occurs (en masse) in ONE directiononly.
To preserve the division of the world into victims and victimizers, it is intellectually imperative to keep migrants in a state of the most complete dependence possible.
And that is precisely what British [Canadian & U.S.] immigration policies seems designed to do. The last thing liberals need or want is sturdily, self-reliant people who do not require their help.
He’s a Christian from Egypt, who came to Canada in 2002 seeking asylum. He made a refugee claim, alleging he was persecuted in his home country, for promoting Christianity in his bookstore.
The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) didn’t believe he was telling the truth. Neither did the federal court.
In September, after he exhausted all appeals, Canada deported him back to Egypt — a country where Christians make up 10 per cent of the predominantly Muslim population.
CTV News has now obtained photographs and videotape, allegedly of the same man, which show fresh injuries on his back. They appear to be burns and welts, which he claims were inflicted by Egyptian authorities. He alleges that, since he was sent back, two security officers from Egypt’s State Security Investigations (SSI) have detained, interrogated and threatened him several times. He also claims he was shocked with electricity, doused with water and beaten.
[If this unsubstantiated story were true… why doesn’t this Egyptian citizen move to another city in his own country. If that doesn’t work out for him, surely there are other countries in his nearby region where he can travel. Why does this Egyptian national insist on returning to our country where he takes great pains (pun intended) to attract international attention to return to Canadian soil as a FAILED refugee?]
Audio Tape:“I feel very afraid. Very afraid. Save me please. They tortured me. They tortured me a lot all over my back,” the man on the tape said. “They told me, we decorated your back like your Jesus. All my body was shaking. I could not control myself.”
“They were laughing. They were laughing. Let your Jesus come to save you.” The man broke down in tears. “Please, I beg you, I beg you save me, save me. Save my life.”
[This unverified tape sounds all rather melodramatic. Will our gullible Canadian immigration authorities fall for this game?
It’s as if we didn’t have enough problems of our own when we are importing about 5000 legal immigrants EVERY WEEK of every year. We are now forced to place the spotlight on this one lone foreigner living thousands of miles away in his OWN country. He is simply NOT our problem. This is ludicrous!]
The man’s supporters want to get him out of Egypt as soon as possible, with or without Ottawa’s help. Deslogeshopes he can get back to Canada and make another refugee claim, this time with evidence.
[Try Bollywood…it’s not only closer to Egypt, but you would make a great actor.]
A man who says he left his wife and young son behind in China toescape forced sterilization, has won the first round in a bid for refugee status.
[Throughout the entire world many thousands of spouses leave their mates for unknown reasons every day, yet this unknown foreigner who hails from a another country half-way around the world tells us this unverified story and…. and we’re duped into believing it?]
Yong Gang Liang, 35, told an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing he fled to Canada in January, 2005 after being ordered to report for sterilization so his family didn’t break China’s one-child policy.
[This is no valid reason to accept any supposed “refugee’s” claim. If one of Canada’s largest trading partners has policies set up to stem their huge population growth, we should accept their decisions, or otherwise cut off trade with China.]
Liang“claimed” he was going to be compelled to undergo sterilization because his wife was ill after having a forced abortion in September, 2004 when she was pregnant with their second child. The couple have an eight-year-old son.
“To avoid his destiny, the applicant fled China and arrived in Canada,” said Mr. Justice Frederick Gibson, of the Federal Court of Canada.
[Canada is a long way to flee when perhaps a nearby Asian country would suffice, yes??]
“He told tales of horror: Forced abortion and threats of forced sterilization.”
[Was he falsely imprisoned or threatened with death? Again, not Canada’s problem!]
The case was dismissed by the board, and then appealed to the federal court.
Liang told the court he and his wife, who remained in China, would like to have a second child, which is illegal under China’s one-child policy.
[Well, then make the proper applications to immigrate to another country if you’re not happy with your own country’s policies…..this is NOT just cause to file a refugee claim!He is wasting our time!]
“The claimant’s exclusive premise for making a refugee claim is based primarily on the future possibilities of he and his spouse bearing an additional child,” Liang’s immigration documents state.
[This tale is becoming more ludicrous by the minute, and I’m asking why are we spending so much valuable judicial time and tax-payer’s money on China’s “problem”??]
Liang’s lawyer Mark Rosenblatt refused to comment on the case since it’s still being heard.
[Who is providing this uninvited guest with the necessary means of food, clothing, accommodation, health care…. and not to mention those expensive lawyers? Well, it’s the working Canadian taxpayer who is ‘on the hook’ for all his expenses.]
Avvy Go, of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, said China’s one-child per family policy remains firmly in place.
“This case is not out of the ordinary,” Go said. “We have come across a number of these cases.”
[Canada does not want to set a precedent for another back-door refugee policy that opens the flood-gates to other Chinese who would drown us out of our own country in a couple of generations.]
Today, the term “anti-Semitism” has been broadly mis-defined for use as a political weaponto silence any criticism of Israel, Judaism, or liberal Jewish activism. Those who make the simplest statements of unflattering truth about Israeli or Jewish actions are smeared as anti-Semites.
Any leader who criticizes Israel or Jewish activists is in danger of being ruined by the charge of anti-Semitism. While Christian leaders and the secular media openly criticize Islam, they carefully protect the dark side of Judaic ethics and Zionist history from exposure. This enables the government of Israel to act without substantive moral oversight.
Such favoritism also empowers liberal Jewish activists to pursue their anti-Christian agenda hidden from public view.
Concerned and careful thinkers should object to irresponsible charges of “anti-Semitism” and define this term correctly. Clarity is vitally important because the same Jewish leadership that Christ attacked is still in the world, deceiving a majority of both Jewish people and Christian evangelicals.
Last year, Rabbi Daniel Lapin warned that “secular Judaism” is “in relentless attack on evangelical Christians.”
Most assaults against Christian symbols and values come from Jewish activists or Jewish-led “civil liberties” groups like the Anti-Defamation League [ADL] of B’nai B’rith, the ACLU, People for the American Way, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
ADL/B’nai B’rith has destroyed freedom of speech in more than a dozen countries [including Canada] through the “anti-hate” laws THEY designed.
As a result of liberal Jewish activism, many people unjustly blame “the Jews” in general for widespread anti-Christianity and attacks on freedom. Such resentment, especially in Europe, could result in anti-Semitic violence in the years ahead. Anti-Semitism is also fueled by Israeli policies which go uncriticized out of fear of the “anti-Semite” slur.
A Canadian university cancelled a debate on racial diversity between the head of its BLACK studies program and an American “racial nationalist,” for fear that the topic would be too controversial .
But the cancellation of the debate raised concerns about academic freedom, with the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers arguing that it sends the wrong message to call off the debate at Dalhousie University between Professor David Divine and Jared Taylor, of American Renaissance magazine, on the topic of “Racial Diversity: North America’s Strength or Weakness?”
“The way you deal with speech some may find objectionable or even abhorrent is not with silence,” said James Turk. “It’s with more speech—with criticism and debate.
“We’re always concerned when a university shuts down debate like this, especially around controversial subjects.”
Officials of the Halifax (Nova Scotia) university cited “the controversy surrounding the issue” in deciding to cancel the event, which was to be held on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
The university said in a statement that while “the topic is an important one … the university has learned more about the background and standpoint of the others involved in the proposed debate and has concluded a debate with people who held such views would not be a useful way to explore the topic.”
Instead, Professor Divine will deliver a lecture on the topic byhimself, the statement said.
Mr. Taylor, who describes himself as a “race realist,” said he was shocked by the university’s about-face on the debate, and said it showed “academic cowardice.”
“I’m absolutely astounded by this,” he said in an interview from his Virginia office. “In effect, he has ejected me from the debate and taken the floor for himself … They’ve turned a debate into a monologue.”
Prof. Divine was not available for comment and it was not clear who decided to cancel the debate.
But Tom Traves, the Dalhousie University president told the Halifax Chronical-Herald one day before the event was cancelled that he was surprised to hear of the potential controversy and promised: “I’ll have to look into this.”
And in an e-mail to the National Post, university spokesman Charles Crosby wrote: “The powers that be have just informed me the event will now not take place.”
Posters had already been printed for the event, and Mr. Taylor said he had already booked his flight and hotel room. “They don’t want to hear dissenting points of view on this topic.”
Mr. Turk, whose association represents 55,000 teachers, librarians, researchers and other academic staff, said that regardless of what university officials thought of Mr. Taylor’s views, they should be protecting professors who raise controversy.
He gave as one example a political scientist from St. Francis Xavier University who attended a Holocaust denial conference in Iran earlier this month. Shiraz Dossa was chastized by the university’s academic vice-president this week, but has apparently not been disciplined for attending the two-day conference in Tehran.
The president of the university expressed “shock and regret” when he learned that the professor had presented a paper on how the Holocaust plays into the war on terror.
Mr. Turk insists that the “role of a university administrator is to protect their faculty’s academic freedom—not to discipline them for exercising it.”
“Why yes, it can also be called civil discourse; we used to learn that in high school or earlier. A university, of all institutions, doesn’t get it and they can’t see their own stunning hypocrisy!? ”
“Being a former (and reformed) “Canadian psuedo-liberal”, this is no surprise. Free speech is absolutely intolerated in Canada; as such, I reside in the States, never to return to the north. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of admiration for “Canadian values” such as these in the US currently, and seem to be gaining steam. Fortunately, we still have some forums like this here. Lets fight for them.”
“Only ‘controversial’ speech requires protections inherent in our First Amendment, which does not have a correlary in Canadian (UK) law. Canada is stuck with ADL/B’nai B’rith Hate Crime/Hate Speech laws which now exist in most US States, in direct violation of our Constitution/Bill of Rights. The UN Charter of Human Rights similarly allows self-appointed elitists to control “free” speech. Without free speech, there is no freedom for the Citizenry.”
“So much for free speech and debate. All it takes is for some group such as SPLC to label you as a white supremacist or a racist and then some universities will think they are allowed to prevent you from speaking and/or allow radical students to shout you down. However, Mr. Taylor is in very good company, SPLC and others are also not too happy with Pat Buchanan, Dinesh D’Souza, Charles Murray, David Horowitz and Ann Coulter, to name just a few.
Almost all the universities scream about student [racial] diversity, but want no part [in discussing the topic] of academic and political diversity. The ratio between leftists and conservatives is striking. ”