Featured Article
Anti-White Race Politics and Mass Immigration for World Government
Showing posts with label Articles in English. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Articles in English. Show all posts
Monday, May 20, 2013
Mass-Immigration is altering America: its Founding People are Vanishing
[caption id="attachment_1087" align="alignnone" width="300"]
Confederation Wax Museum, Ottawa, Ontario[/caption]
The border is being eliminated between Canada and the USA. North American Union is coming. High treason!
Then Western Hemispheric Union is coming. The European peoples who founded America and Canada are disappearing.
Mass immigration, paid for by Canadian tax-dollars, is helping to erase that border by "harmonizing" our population and demographics with those of the USA, Mexico and South America. Southern populations in their billions will flow towards Canada, eradicating our people, our form of government, our culture, our heritage and our nation.
Mass immigration is unconstitutional. Canada is an ethnic confederation of its Founding Peoples. Each Provincial Legislature belongs to one of the Founding Peoples, and there are more than two! Thus, we have 10 Provinces, plus territories and regions.
The fact that the Founding Peoples of Canada happen to be white is purely incidental to the fact that we ourselves are ethnic groups entitled to our own respective Legislatures, founded for us in 1867 to preserve us and our cultures.
Formally removing the border, for example on the pretext of another manufactured 9/11, will sound the death-knell to the Founding Peoples of Canada and of the United States of America.
Culture, temperament and mentality, and form of government are unique to each race. We are entitled to be who we are. We have a right to exist. We must stop the mass immigration! We must stop the treasonous corporate-fascist-fueled North American Union! It will take nothing less to save the Founding Peoples of Canada!
Will we wake up and stand up in time to take back what belongs to us, before we cease to exist! Do we want to be a minority on our own soil?
Do we want to exist, do we want self-government? It belongs to us, but we are allowing it to slip away.
Or, will the last Canadian left be a waxed mummy in Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum?
The news today:
A historic decline in the number of U.S. whites and the fast growth of Latinos are blurring traditional black-white color lines, testing the limits of civil rights laws and reshaping political alliances as "whiteness" begins to lose its numerical dominance.
Long in coming, the demographic shift was most vividly illustrated in last November's re-election of President Barack Obama, the first black president, despite a historically low percentage of white supporters.
It's now a potent backdrop to the immigration issue being debated in Congress that could offer a path to citizenship for 11 million mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants. Also, the Supreme Court is deciding cases this term on affirmative action and voting rights that could redefine race and equality in the U.S.
The latest census data and polling from The Associated Press highlight the historic change in a nation in which non-Hispanic whites will lose their majority in the next generation, somewhere around the year 2043.
Despite being a nation of immigrants, America's tip to a white minority has never occurred in its 237-year history and will be a first among the world's major post-industrial societies. Brazil, a developing nation, has crossed the threshold to "majority-minority" status; a few cities in France and England are near, if not past that point.
The international experience and recent U.S. events point to an uncertain future for American race relations. In Brazil, where multiracialism is celebrated, social mobility remains among the world's lowest for blacks while wealth is concentrated among whites at the top. In France, race is not recorded on government census forms and people share a unified Gallic identity, yet high levels of racial discrimination persist.
"The American experience has always been a story of color. In the 20th century it was a story of the black-white line. In the 21st century we are moving into a new off-white moment," says Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, a global expert on immigration and dean of UCLA's Graduate School of Education & Information Studies.
"Numerically, the U.S. is being transformed. The question now is whether our institutions are being transformed," he said. The shift is being driven by the modern wave of U.S. newcomers from Latin America and Asia. Their annual inflow of 650,000 people since 1965, at a rate that's grown in recent years, surpasses the pace of the last great immigration wave a century ago. That influx, from 1820 to 1920, brought in Irish, Germans, Italians and Jews from Europe and made the gateway of Ellis Island, N.Y., an immigrant landmark, symbolizing freedom, liberty and the American dream.
An equal factor is today's aging white population, mostly baby boomers, whose coming wave of retirements will create a need for first- and second-generation immigrants to help take their place in the workforce.
The numbers already demonstrate that being white is fading as a test of American-ness: — More U.S. babies are now born to minorities than whites, a milestone reached last year. — More than 45 percent of students in kindergarten through 12th grade are minorities. The Census Bureau projects that in five years the number of nonwhite children will surpass 50 percent.
— The District of Columbia, Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas have minority populations greater than 50 percent. By 2020, eight more states are projected to join the list: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey and New York. Latinos already outnumber whites in New Mexico; California will tip to a Latino plurality next year.
— By 2039, racial and ethnic minorities will make up a majority of the U.S. working-age population, helping to support a disproportionately elderly white population through Social Security and other payroll taxes. More than 1 in 4 people ages 18-64 will be Latino.
— The white population, now at 197.8 million, is projected to peak at 200 million in 2024, before entering a steady decline in absolute numbers. Currently 63 percent of the U.S. population, the white share is expected to drop below 50 percent by 2043, when racial and ethnic minorities will collectively become a U.S. majority. Hispanics will drive most of the minority growth, due mostly to high birth rates, jumping in share from 17 percent to 26 percent.
The pace of assimilation for today's Latinos and Asian-Americans is often compared with that of the Poles, Irish, Italians and Jews who arrived around the turn of the 20th century and eventually merged into an American white mainstream.
There was a backlash. By the 1930s, an immigrant-weary America had imposed strict quotas and closed its borders. Those newly arrived were pushed to conform and blend in with a white mainstream, benefiting from New Deal economic programs that generally excluded blacks. The immigration quotas also cut off the supply of new workers to ethnic enclaves and reduced social and economic contacts between immigrants and their countries of origin.
"America of the Melting Pot comes to End," read a 1924 opinion headline in The New York Times. The author, a U.S. senator, pledged that strict new immigration quotas would "preserve racial type as it exists here today."
Today, data show that Latinos are embracing U.S. life but also maintaining strong ties to their heritage, aided by a new stream of foreign-born immigrants who arrive each year. Hispanics, officially an ethnic group, strive to learn English and 1 in 4 intermarry, taking a white spouse.
Nowadays, immigrants face less pressure to conform than did their counterparts from a century ago. Latinos are protected as a minority, benefiting from the 1950s civil rights movement pioneered by blacks. Nearly 40 percent of Latinos now resist a white identity on census forms, checking a box indicating "some other race" to establish a Hispanic race identity.
While growing diversity is often a step toward a post-racial U.S., sociologists caution that the politics of racial diversity could just as easily become more magnified. A first-of-its-kind AP poll conducted in 2011 found that a slight majority of whites expressed racial bias against Hispanics and that their attitudes were similar to or even greater than the bias they held toward blacks. Hispanics also remained somewhat residentially segregated from whites in lower-income neighborhoods, hurt in part by the disappearance of good-paying, midskill manufacturing jobs that helped white ethnics rise into the middle class during most of the 20th century.
The AP survey was conducted with researchers from Stanford University, the University of Michigan and NORC at the University of Chicago. Harvard economist George Borjas projects that by 2030, the children of today's immigrants will earn on average 10 percent to 15 percent less than nonimmigrant Americans, based on past trends, and that Latinos will particularly struggle because of high rates of poverty, lack of citizenship and lower rates of education. In 1940, the children of early 20th-century white ethnics fared much better on average, earning 21.4 percent more than nonimmigrants.
About 35 percent of Hispanic babies are currently born into poverty, compared with 41 percent of blacks and 20 percent for whites. "How America responds now to the new challenges of racial and ethnic diversity will determine whether it becomes a more open and inclusive society in the future — one that provides equal opportunities and justice for all," said Daniel Lichter, a Cornell sociologist and past president of the Population Association of America.
The demographic shift has spurred debate as to whether some civil-rights era programs, such as affirmative action in college admissions, should begin to focus on income level rather than race or ethnicity. The Supreme Court will rule on the issue by late June.
Following a racially lopsided re-election, Obama has spoken broadly about promoting social and economic opportunity. In his State of the Union speech, he said that rebuilding the middle class is "our generation's task." Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a rising star of a mostly white Republican party now eager to attract Latino voters, is courting supporters in both English and Spanish in part by pledging programs that would boost "social mobility."
Left unclear is how much of a role government can or should play in lifting the disadvantaged, in an era of strapped federal budgets and rising debt. The Latino immigrants include Irma Guereque, 60, of Las Vegas, who says enjoying a middle-class life is what's most important to her.
Things turned bad for the Mexico native in the recent recession after her work hours as a food server were cut at the Texas Station casino off the Strip. As a result, she couldn't make the mortgage payments on a spacious house she purchased and was forced to move into an apartment with her grandchildren.
While she's getting almost full-time hours now, money is often on her mind. Her finances mean retirement is hardly an option, even though she's got diabetes and is getting older. Many politicians are "only thinking of the rich, and not the poor, and that's not right," Guereque said in Spanish. "We need opportunities for everyone."
Associated Press writers Elaine Ganley in Montfermeil, France, Jenny Barchfield in Rio de Janeiro and Michelle Rindels in Las Vegas contributed to this report.
Online:
Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov
EDITOR'S NOTE _ "America at the Tipping Point: The Changing Face of a Nation" is an occasional series examining the changing cultural mosaic of the U.S. and its historic shift to a majority-minority nation.
- 30 -
Confederation Wax Museum, Ottawa, Ontario[/caption]The border is being eliminated between Canada and the USA. North American Union is coming. High treason!
Then Western Hemispheric Union is coming. The European peoples who founded America and Canada are disappearing.
Mass immigration, paid for by Canadian tax-dollars, is helping to erase that border by "harmonizing" our population and demographics with those of the USA, Mexico and South America. Southern populations in their billions will flow towards Canada, eradicating our people, our form of government, our culture, our heritage and our nation.
Mass immigration is unconstitutional. Canada is an ethnic confederation of its Founding Peoples. Each Provincial Legislature belongs to one of the Founding Peoples, and there are more than two! Thus, we have 10 Provinces, plus territories and regions.
The fact that the Founding Peoples of Canada happen to be white is purely incidental to the fact that we ourselves are ethnic groups entitled to our own respective Legislatures, founded for us in 1867 to preserve us and our cultures.
Formally removing the border, for example on the pretext of another manufactured 9/11, will sound the death-knell to the Founding Peoples of Canada and of the United States of America.
Culture, temperament and mentality, and form of government are unique to each race. We are entitled to be who we are. We have a right to exist. We must stop the mass immigration! We must stop the treasonous corporate-fascist-fueled North American Union! It will take nothing less to save the Founding Peoples of Canada!
Will we wake up and stand up in time to take back what belongs to us, before we cease to exist! Do we want to be a minority on our own soil?
Do we want to exist, do we want self-government? It belongs to us, but we are allowing it to slip away.
Or, will the last Canadian left be a waxed mummy in Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum?
The news today:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Welcome to the new off-white America.
A historic decline in the number of U.S. whites and the fast growth of Latinos are blurring traditional black-white color lines, testing the limits of civil rights laws and reshaping political alliances as "whiteness" begins to lose its numerical dominance.
Long in coming, the demographic shift was most vividly illustrated in last November's re-election of President Barack Obama, the first black president, despite a historically low percentage of white supporters.
It's now a potent backdrop to the immigration issue being debated in Congress that could offer a path to citizenship for 11 million mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants. Also, the Supreme Court is deciding cases this term on affirmative action and voting rights that could redefine race and equality in the U.S.
The latest census data and polling from The Associated Press highlight the historic change in a nation in which non-Hispanic whites will lose their majority in the next generation, somewhere around the year 2043.
Despite being a nation of immigrants, America's tip to a white minority has never occurred in its 237-year history and will be a first among the world's major post-industrial societies. Brazil, a developing nation, has crossed the threshold to "majority-minority" status; a few cities in France and England are near, if not past that point.
The international experience and recent U.S. events point to an uncertain future for American race relations. In Brazil, where multiracialism is celebrated, social mobility remains among the world's lowest for blacks while wealth is concentrated among whites at the top. In France, race is not recorded on government census forms and people share a unified Gallic identity, yet high levels of racial discrimination persist.
"The American experience has always been a story of color. In the 20th century it was a story of the black-white line. In the 21st century we are moving into a new off-white moment," says Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, a global expert on immigration and dean of UCLA's Graduate School of Education & Information Studies.
"Numerically, the U.S. is being transformed. The question now is whether our institutions are being transformed," he said. The shift is being driven by the modern wave of U.S. newcomers from Latin America and Asia. Their annual inflow of 650,000 people since 1965, at a rate that's grown in recent years, surpasses the pace of the last great immigration wave a century ago. That influx, from 1820 to 1920, brought in Irish, Germans, Italians and Jews from Europe and made the gateway of Ellis Island, N.Y., an immigrant landmark, symbolizing freedom, liberty and the American dream.
An equal factor is today's aging white population, mostly baby boomers, whose coming wave of retirements will create a need for first- and second-generation immigrants to help take their place in the workforce.
The numbers already demonstrate that being white is fading as a test of American-ness: — More U.S. babies are now born to minorities than whites, a milestone reached last year. — More than 45 percent of students in kindergarten through 12th grade are minorities. The Census Bureau projects that in five years the number of nonwhite children will surpass 50 percent.
— The District of Columbia, Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas have minority populations greater than 50 percent. By 2020, eight more states are projected to join the list: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey and New York. Latinos already outnumber whites in New Mexico; California will tip to a Latino plurality next year.
— By 2039, racial and ethnic minorities will make up a majority of the U.S. working-age population, helping to support a disproportionately elderly white population through Social Security and other payroll taxes. More than 1 in 4 people ages 18-64 will be Latino.
— The white population, now at 197.8 million, is projected to peak at 200 million in 2024, before entering a steady decline in absolute numbers. Currently 63 percent of the U.S. population, the white share is expected to drop below 50 percent by 2043, when racial and ethnic minorities will collectively become a U.S. majority. Hispanics will drive most of the minority growth, due mostly to high birth rates, jumping in share from 17 percent to 26 percent.
The pace of assimilation for today's Latinos and Asian-Americans is often compared with that of the Poles, Irish, Italians and Jews who arrived around the turn of the 20th century and eventually merged into an American white mainstream.
There was a backlash. By the 1930s, an immigrant-weary America had imposed strict quotas and closed its borders. Those newly arrived were pushed to conform and blend in with a white mainstream, benefiting from New Deal economic programs that generally excluded blacks. The immigration quotas also cut off the supply of new workers to ethnic enclaves and reduced social and economic contacts between immigrants and their countries of origin.
"America of the Melting Pot comes to End," read a 1924 opinion headline in The New York Times. The author, a U.S. senator, pledged that strict new immigration quotas would "preserve racial type as it exists here today."
Today, data show that Latinos are embracing U.S. life but also maintaining strong ties to their heritage, aided by a new stream of foreign-born immigrants who arrive each year. Hispanics, officially an ethnic group, strive to learn English and 1 in 4 intermarry, taking a white spouse.
Nowadays, immigrants face less pressure to conform than did their counterparts from a century ago. Latinos are protected as a minority, benefiting from the 1950s civil rights movement pioneered by blacks. Nearly 40 percent of Latinos now resist a white identity on census forms, checking a box indicating "some other race" to establish a Hispanic race identity.
While growing diversity is often a step toward a post-racial U.S., sociologists caution that the politics of racial diversity could just as easily become more magnified. A first-of-its-kind AP poll conducted in 2011 found that a slight majority of whites expressed racial bias against Hispanics and that their attitudes were similar to or even greater than the bias they held toward blacks. Hispanics also remained somewhat residentially segregated from whites in lower-income neighborhoods, hurt in part by the disappearance of good-paying, midskill manufacturing jobs that helped white ethnics rise into the middle class during most of the 20th century.
The AP survey was conducted with researchers from Stanford University, the University of Michigan and NORC at the University of Chicago. Harvard economist George Borjas projects that by 2030, the children of today's immigrants will earn on average 10 percent to 15 percent less than nonimmigrant Americans, based on past trends, and that Latinos will particularly struggle because of high rates of poverty, lack of citizenship and lower rates of education. In 1940, the children of early 20th-century white ethnics fared much better on average, earning 21.4 percent more than nonimmigrants.
About 35 percent of Hispanic babies are currently born into poverty, compared with 41 percent of blacks and 20 percent for whites. "How America responds now to the new challenges of racial and ethnic diversity will determine whether it becomes a more open and inclusive society in the future — one that provides equal opportunities and justice for all," said Daniel Lichter, a Cornell sociologist and past president of the Population Association of America.
The demographic shift has spurred debate as to whether some civil-rights era programs, such as affirmative action in college admissions, should begin to focus on income level rather than race or ethnicity. The Supreme Court will rule on the issue by late June.
Following a racially lopsided re-election, Obama has spoken broadly about promoting social and economic opportunity. In his State of the Union speech, he said that rebuilding the middle class is "our generation's task." Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a rising star of a mostly white Republican party now eager to attract Latino voters, is courting supporters in both English and Spanish in part by pledging programs that would boost "social mobility."
Left unclear is how much of a role government can or should play in lifting the disadvantaged, in an era of strapped federal budgets and rising debt. The Latino immigrants include Irma Guereque, 60, of Las Vegas, who says enjoying a middle-class life is what's most important to her.
Things turned bad for the Mexico native in the recent recession after her work hours as a food server were cut at the Texas Station casino off the Strip. As a result, she couldn't make the mortgage payments on a spacious house she purchased and was forced to move into an apartment with her grandchildren.
While she's getting almost full-time hours now, money is often on her mind. Her finances mean retirement is hardly an option, even though she's got diabetes and is getting older. Many politicians are "only thinking of the rich, and not the poor, and that's not right," Guereque said in Spanish. "We need opportunities for everyone."
Associated Press writers Elaine Ganley in Montfermeil, France, Jenny Barchfield in Rio de Janeiro and Michelle Rindels in Las Vegas contributed to this report.
Online:
Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov
EDITOR'S NOTE _ "America at the Tipping Point: The Changing Face of a Nation" is an occasional series examining the changing cultural mosaic of the U.S. and its historic shift to a majority-minority nation.
- 30 -
I Am Locked Out!
The hard drive fell out of my antique laptop and hit the ground 48 hours ago. It makes an awful sound, and cannot be read.
I have to find funds to recover the data, i.e., all my passwords.
Meanwhile, spam bots are having a ball in here!
Seems they can read captchas!
I have to find a plugin to put an end to this, once and for all.
Meanwhile, although I am the Admin, I am posting as a user, which is the only way I can post right now.
Please bear with me!
Kathleen Moore
Admin
Founding Canadians
I have to find funds to recover the data, i.e., all my passwords.
Meanwhile, spam bots are having a ball in here!
Seems they can read captchas!
I have to find a plugin to put an end to this, once and for all.
Meanwhile, although I am the Admin, I am posting as a user, which is the only way I can post right now.
Please bear with me!
Kathleen Moore
Admin
Founding Canadians
Saturday, April 20, 2013
The public service is too “white”, says Louise Harel
Original French article: "La fonction publique est trop «blanche», estime Louise Harel" published 24 May 2011 at 15h49 | Updated 24 May 2011 at 18h08
Exclusive English translation by Kathleen Moore for 1867Confederation.com and Habeas Corpus Canada.
Photo Hugo-Sébastien Aubert, La Presse. According to Vision Montréal, only the implementation of a “vast campaign” will change the face of the Montreal public service.
By Gabriel Béland, La Presse
Despite the implementation of an employment equity program, the Montreal public service is still too white and too homogeneous, deplored Louise Harel today, leader of the Vision Montreal party, who recommends that a campaign be instituted to hire more minorities.
The leader of the city’s official opposition convened a press conference to denounce the “semi-failure” of the City’s diversity policy.
Citing statistics in support, she recalled that visible minorities and ethnics represent 31% of the Montreal population, but constitute
only 13% of the public service.
“It hasn’t budged for five years and the portrait is distressing,” said Louise Harel. An assessment of semi-failure is obvious. It is
absolutely necessary to set in motion steps to improve the score of the City of Montreal in terms of integration.”
Since 2001, the law on the equality of access to jobs in public agencies has compelled those municipalities with staffs of over 100
employees to implement a policy of integration. However, the policy has not borne fruit in Montreal, deplored Louise Harel.
According to her, only a “vast campaign” will change the face of the Montreal public service. Vision Montréal believes that an overhaul of the hiring process adopted last week may help solve the problem.
A plan was adopted in Montreal by the elected representatives which foresees the creation of a single job center. Currently, persons
wishing to work for the City must submit their candidacies at 34 different locations -- in 19 boroughs and 15 administrative units.
Starting in November, only one office will be tasked with receiving CVs and drawing up lists of candidates. This centralization should
facilitate the integration of minorities, believes Vision Montréal.
“It will put an end to the scattering. An overall plan was needed, with results-oriented objectives and visibility to assure success,
explained Mrs. Harel. Previously, each borough could hold its own job competitions, with its own candidate-selection team. For the
past five years, this has all played against the equality-in-employment program.”
At the City, we are "decidedly troubled" by these figures, of which the Administration was already aware, explained Jean-Yves Hinse,
manager of human resources for the City of Montreal.
Mr. Hinse also thinks that centralization of the hiring process will make it easier to attain the City’s objectives in respect to diversity.
“They expect to make important breakthroughs in the coming years”, assured Mr. Hinse.
Exclusive English translation by Kathleen Moore for 1867Confederation.com and Habeas Corpus Canada.
Photo Hugo-Sébastien Aubert, La Presse. According to Vision Montréal, only the implementation of a “vast campaign” will change the face of the Montreal public service.
By Gabriel Béland, La Presse
Despite the implementation of an employment equity program, the Montreal public service is still too white and too homogeneous, deplored Louise Harel today, leader of the Vision Montreal party, who recommends that a campaign be instituted to hire more minorities.
The leader of the city’s official opposition convened a press conference to denounce the “semi-failure” of the City’s diversity policy.
Citing statistics in support, she recalled that visible minorities and ethnics represent 31% of the Montreal population, but constitute
only 13% of the public service.
“It hasn’t budged for five years and the portrait is distressing,” said Louise Harel. An assessment of semi-failure is obvious. It is
absolutely necessary to set in motion steps to improve the score of the City of Montreal in terms of integration.”
Since 2001, the law on the equality of access to jobs in public agencies has compelled those municipalities with staffs of over 100
employees to implement a policy of integration. However, the policy has not borne fruit in Montreal, deplored Louise Harel.
According to her, only a “vast campaign” will change the face of the Montreal public service. Vision Montréal believes that an overhaul of the hiring process adopted last week may help solve the problem.
A plan was adopted in Montreal by the elected representatives which foresees the creation of a single job center. Currently, persons
wishing to work for the City must submit their candidacies at 34 different locations -- in 19 boroughs and 15 administrative units.
Starting in November, only one office will be tasked with receiving CVs and drawing up lists of candidates. This centralization should
facilitate the integration of minorities, believes Vision Montréal.
“It will put an end to the scattering. An overall plan was needed, with results-oriented objectives and visibility to assure success,
explained Mrs. Harel. Previously, each borough could hold its own job competitions, with its own candidate-selection team. For the
past five years, this has all played against the equality-in-employment program.”
At the City, we are "decidedly troubled" by these figures, of which the Administration was already aware, explained Jean-Yves Hinse,
manager of human resources for the City of Montreal.
Mr. Hinse also thinks that centralization of the hiring process will make it easier to attain the City’s objectives in respect to diversity.
“They expect to make important breakthroughs in the coming years”, assured Mr. Hinse.
Friday, April 19, 2013
135 Mother Tongues in CDN-NDG, Montreal
English translation by Kathleen Moore for 1867Confederation.com
French original story: Journal de Montréal, News. 10 September 2012, p. 12
Foreword:
A Montreal neighborhood that for most of Confederation was French and English, is now mostly foreign. It took mass immigration only thirty years or so to change the face of this district. The presence of a mass of foreign cultures displaces both the English and French Founding Peoples and our own cultures.
Government institutions in the region are devoted to preserving the immigrants' cultures, not the cultures of the Founding French and English Canadians.
French original story: Journal de Montréal, News. 10 September 2012, p. 12
Foreword:
A Montreal neighborhood that for most of Confederation was French and English, is now mostly foreign. It took mass immigration only thirty years or so to change the face of this district. The presence of a mass of foreign cultures displaces both the English and French Founding Peoples and our own cultures.
Government institutions in the region are devoted to preserving the immigrants' cultures, not the cultures of the Founding French and English Canadians.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Immigrants Replace English Founders in Montreal
This is a translation of a French article entitled "Quelle est la langue de votre quartier?" [PDF attached] by Marie Cicchini, published in Actualités CDN-NDG on 28 November 2012 at page 9 in the Community section.
From the post-war period which left Europe devastated in 1945 to the new waves of immigration from the East and from South Asia, immigration has changed and is ceaselessly redrawing the face of whole regions.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
New resource: LEXI - essential words for Canada
I have started a new TAB on the top menu bar of this WordPress site. The tab is called "LEXI" -- short for Lexicon (English) and Lexique (francais).
I am collecting authoritative definitions of words that are important for a more detailed understanding of the problems we are encountering with multiculturalism, and mass immigration.
They are also essential to fighting the invasion on a constitutional and legal basis. Without accepted definitions, and a deeper understanding of what we are facing, we cannot combat the problem and thus protect ourselves and our lawful Constitution.
The first word defined, today, is "MULTICULTURALISM" - MULTICULTURALISME:
http://1867confederation.com/lexi/multiculturalism/
Kathleen Moore, FC1867
- 30 -
I am collecting authoritative definitions of words that are important for a more detailed understanding of the problems we are encountering with multiculturalism, and mass immigration.
They are also essential to fighting the invasion on a constitutional and legal basis. Without accepted definitions, and a deeper understanding of what we are facing, we cannot combat the problem and thus protect ourselves and our lawful Constitution.
The first word defined, today, is "MULTICULTURALISM" - MULTICULTURALISME:
http://1867confederation.com/lexi/multiculturalism/
Kathleen Moore, FC1867
- 30 -
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
None dare call it White genocide
None dare call it White genocide
The case for a new discourse of genocide
by Christian Miller
The overarching goal of the “open borders” movement is to flood millions of non-Whites into all traditionally White nations. Make no mistake – this is not mere coincidence. It is White genocide by design, worldwide in application. The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Australia: White people founded and populated these nations. All of these nations operated under the implicit mandate, if not explicit by law, that they existed as White nations for the posterity of the White founding stock. All of these nations had overwhelmingly White populations for the preponderance of their national history. Now, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, all of these traditionally White nations face demographic upheavals through massive non-White immigration. The White populations of these countries are slated to become minority populations in just a few generations.
Painting of the Fathers of Confederation by C. W. Simpson
Who founded Canada, and whom did they found it for?
Why is the push for unrestricted immigration focused so strongly and so specifically upon the traditionally White nations? Some say the traditionally White nations are economically advanced and therefore desirable destinations for immigration. This observation is mostly accurate. However, it does not explain the entire story because there are many other advanced nations that are traditionally non-White, yet face no pressure to absorb foreign populations.
Japan is one of the most highly advanced economies in the world. It is a well-known and well-documented fact that Japan faces a grave population decline. There are not enough young Japanese to assume the lower rungs of the workforce. The elderly Japanese population looms on the horizon, destined to strain the retirement and pension system. The Japanese reproductive rate is far below the replacement rate. Over time, Japan’s population will continue its precipitous descent. Under the orthodox globalist economic doctrine, Japan’s situation beckons for a massive influx of cheap foreign labor. Yet somehow the international political discourse barely broaches the topic of massive non-Japanese immigration to Japan. There is no strong international or domestic pressure (or imperious demand) for Japan to import millions of Africans or South Americans. Japan is not singled out for genocide via massive non-Japanese immigration. Japan is not the target. Japan is free to remain Japanese. It is only White nations that are targeted for genocide.
Egalitarians claim “the race problem” will disappear if the traditionally White nations assimilate and interbreed with non-White populations. Some imagine this will produce a utopia of brown-skinned beauties –- society without race by homogeneous default. Others recognize this scenario as the systematic eradication of the White race –- White genocide. To bolster the credibility of the latter position, put the shoe on the other foot.
Assume for the sake of argument that in a stunning reversal, political correctness dictates that Africans are racist oppressors. Africans disproportionately enjoy material niceties, unfairly subjugate other races, and an invisible “African privilege” pervades the air which mysteriously oppresses all other races. In this hypothetical world, institutional racism means that Africans are predisposed to success and worldly gain from birth, as a result of the current political power relationship. Now, follow the usual prescription for healing with plans for coercive diversity and watch the fireworks begin!
The continent of Africa can solve “the race problem” by a massive influx of non-Africans. These non-Africans will assimilate and interbreed with Africans over time. The end result will be a utopia of mocha-skinned beauties –- society without race by homogeneous default. Everyone will hold hands in unity, hatred will be a thing of the past, and racial oppression will no longer be an option.
A sharp mind quickly realizes the solution to “the race problem” in the African example is actually the Final Solution for Africans. That is, the systematic eradication of the African people -– African genocide. No rational Black man will agree with such a genocidal campaign. No reasonable Black man will stand by and cheer on the destruction of his or her fellow Africans. No race deserves genocide. Every race has the right to exist biologically, ethnically, and culturally.
International law defines genocide as an international crime against humanity, with grave punishment for violations. As far as the international recognition of the reality of race, ask the ghosts of Saddam Hussein or Wilhelm Frick if the Kurds or Jews, respectively, are mere social constructs. Race is an internationally-recognized reality and is a major factor in the crime of genocide. In the future, the political and economic elites that are responsible for the policies of White genocide may face trial before an international tribunal. The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II states:
The present immigration and political policies of many traditionally White nations, especially the United States, are in violation of part (c) and possibly part (d). White nations have been subverted to conditions that heavily favor non-White immigration, restrict White birthrates, and encourage and support non-White birthrates, and are thus calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the White race. There are many quotations of politicians, professors, and pundits advocating this very point -– the end of the White race. Genocide is not always an act of traditional murder. The United Nations Convention on Genocide covers violent genocide with parts (a) and (b). However, the remaining definitions cover indirect and incremental methods to clarify that any form of genocide is punishable under international law.
The United States employed an explicitly pro-White immigration policy for the entirety of its two centuries of existence until the treasonous 1965 Immigration Act, which reversed this safeguard and subverted American immigration policy to discriminate against White Europeans in favor of non-White immigration. Prior to the 1965 Act, American immigration policy favored White European immigration to maintain the status quo of the American population. The behind-the-scenes architects of the 1965 Act realized that overwhelmingly non-White legal immigration would inevitably reduce the White American population over time. The political front men of the 1965 Act, such as Ted Kennedy, falsely assured the American public that the new immigration policy would not upset the racial balance of America. In 1965, America was approximately 89 percent White. Just a few generations later, America is around 65 percent White. In one more generation, White Americans will be a minority in their own country.
Illegal aliens create further demographic chaos, as White Americans are crowded out and out-bred by millions of mestizo illegal aliens from South America. Despite overwhelming public desire to seal the border and to deport and deny entry to illegal aliens, the federal government has willfully ignored its mandate to protect against all threats, foreign and domestic. Non-White legal immigrants and tens of millions of mestizo illegal alien invaders will dispossess the White American majority in the next few decades. White Americans will become a minority in their own nation.
Overwhelmingly non-White legal immigration and millions of non-White illegal aliens are inherently destructive to the White American population. Welfare and social benefit policies financially reward the generally poorer non-White groups for having large broods of children. Preferential hiring policies set aside jobs for non-Whites. Lax enforcement of employment law allows non-Whites to undercut the wages of educated White American citizens. The appalling aspect of these trends is that most of these policies, such as welfare, food stamps, and free emergency medical care, are predominantly financed by White American taxpayers. These White American taxpayers labor under conditions calculated to bring about their genocide as the progressive income tax discourages the most productive White Americans from having children.
Educated, self-reliant, and law-abiding White American taxpayers face the greatest disincentives to having large families. Instead, these White taxpayers work hard but are forced to financially support criminals, illegal aliens, and welfare abusers. The taxes paid by hardworking White citizens are transferred to illiterate illegal aliens to bankroll large broods of anchor babies that will produce an ever-increasing amount of welfare obligations and future criminals. The White American population dwindles while the non-White populations exponentially increase, further straining the welfare system, crowding prison cells, diluting educational standards, and destroying formerly safe White neighborhoods. White Americans face incremental genocide by design, which is precisely why so many fail to recognize the creeping trend. Genocide need not be associated with machetes, firing squads, or executions. The type of genocide White Americans face is far more subtle, which makes it all the more dangerous.
To deny White citizens of White nations the right to preserve themselves – biologically, ethnically, and culturally – is the true example of racism and hatred. Genocide is never acceptable. What can be more racist than the systematic eradication of an entire race? White Americans need not be ashamed of identifying on a racial basis, as every other race in America has a political license to do so. La Raza, the League of United Latino American Citizens, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith are all bound by racial or ethnic ties.
White Americans are now approaching minority status in the nation their forefathers fought for and built from the ground up. If the current birthrates continue, White Americans will be a minority group in a few generations. White Americans must be free to object to the immigration policy of White genocide without being shouted down as “racists”, a term which has lost potency due to its use as a political tool to silence White advocacy. “Racist” is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence a person who wishes to protect his or her race from extinction – a person who opposes genocide. “Racist” is an empty slur meant to shut down debate, silence White people, and obfuscate the reality of White genocide.
White Americans must be free to describe racial injustices committed against White people. Introduce the term “anti-White” to mainstream political discourse in the only way possible – by starting with private conversation. The mainstream media attempts to mold public opinion, but when there is an seismic shift in American thought, the press has no choice but to bow to popular pressure. Demand an end to White genocide and anti-White policies.
White Americans have the same claims to identity, organization, advocacy, and existence as does any other group in America. Take a principled, adamant, and vocal stand against White genocide. Talk to neighbors and inform friends. Write letters to editors, television producers, media figures, and especially politicians. Let the muffled White voice clear its throat and speak up clearly and forcefully after decades of silence. Turn the tables and take back the moral high ground. The truth is dangerous, which is precisely why slurs like “racist” are currently used to shout down reasonable opposition to White genocide. Brush aside such denunciations, or better yet, mount the offense with a counterattack.
Anyone who opposes a return to traditional American immigration policies is pro-White genocide. Anyone who supports amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens is pro-White genocide. The current American immigration policy discriminates against White Europeans and is pro-White genocide. There is nothing more racist than genocide, because it is the destruction of an entire race. If someone shouts “racist!” in a petty attempt to silence debate, explain that a real racist is someone who wants to commit genocide against the White race. Stop White genocide one conversation, one talking point, one letter, one complaint, one comment, one remark, and one person at a time. Stay on a consistent message against White genocide.
The White race of the future, if there is to be one, will be grateful.
- 30 -
The case for a new discourse of genocide
in our lands
by Christian Miller
The overarching goal of the “open borders” movement is to flood millions of non-Whites into all traditionally White nations. Make no mistake – this is not mere coincidence. It is White genocide by design, worldwide in application. The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Australia: White people founded and populated these nations. All of these nations operated under the implicit mandate, if not explicit by law, that they existed as White nations for the posterity of the White founding stock. All of these nations had overwhelmingly White populations for the preponderance of their national history. Now, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, all of these traditionally White nations face demographic upheavals through massive non-White immigration. The White populations of these countries are slated to become minority populations in just a few generations.
Painting of the Fathers of Confederation by C. W. Simpson
Who founded Canada, and whom did they found it for?
Why is the push for unrestricted immigration focused so strongly and so specifically upon the traditionally White nations? Some say the traditionally White nations are economically advanced and therefore desirable destinations for immigration. This observation is mostly accurate. However, it does not explain the entire story because there are many other advanced nations that are traditionally non-White, yet face no pressure to absorb foreign populations.
Japan is one of the most highly advanced economies in the world. It is a well-known and well-documented fact that Japan faces a grave population decline. There are not enough young Japanese to assume the lower rungs of the workforce. The elderly Japanese population looms on the horizon, destined to strain the retirement and pension system. The Japanese reproductive rate is far below the replacement rate. Over time, Japan’s population will continue its precipitous descent. Under the orthodox globalist economic doctrine, Japan’s situation beckons for a massive influx of cheap foreign labor. Yet somehow the international political discourse barely broaches the topic of massive non-Japanese immigration to Japan. There is no strong international or domestic pressure (or imperious demand) for Japan to import millions of Africans or South Americans. Japan is not singled out for genocide via massive non-Japanese immigration. Japan is not the target. Japan is free to remain Japanese. It is only White nations that are targeted for genocide.
Egalitarians claim “the race problem” will disappear if the traditionally White nations assimilate and interbreed with non-White populations. Some imagine this will produce a utopia of brown-skinned beauties –- society without race by homogeneous default. Others recognize this scenario as the systematic eradication of the White race –- White genocide. To bolster the credibility of the latter position, put the shoe on the other foot.
Assume for the sake of argument that in a stunning reversal, political correctness dictates that Africans are racist oppressors. Africans disproportionately enjoy material niceties, unfairly subjugate other races, and an invisible “African privilege” pervades the air which mysteriously oppresses all other races. In this hypothetical world, institutional racism means that Africans are predisposed to success and worldly gain from birth, as a result of the current political power relationship. Now, follow the usual prescription for healing with plans for coercive diversity and watch the fireworks begin!
The continent of Africa can solve “the race problem” by a massive influx of non-Africans. These non-Africans will assimilate and interbreed with Africans over time. The end result will be a utopia of mocha-skinned beauties –- society without race by homogeneous default. Everyone will hold hands in unity, hatred will be a thing of the past, and racial oppression will no longer be an option.
A sharp mind quickly realizes the solution to “the race problem” in the African example is actually the Final Solution for Africans. That is, the systematic eradication of the African people -– African genocide. No rational Black man will agree with such a genocidal campaign. No reasonable Black man will stand by and cheer on the destruction of his or her fellow Africans. No race deserves genocide. Every race has the right to exist biologically, ethnically, and culturally.
International law defines genocide as an international crime against humanity, with grave punishment for violations. As far as the international recognition of the reality of race, ask the ghosts of Saddam Hussein or Wilhelm Frick if the Kurds or Jews, respectively, are mere social constructs. Race is an internationally-recognized reality and is a major factor in the crime of genocide. In the future, the political and economic elites that are responsible for the policies of White genocide may face trial before an international tribunal. The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
The present immigration and political policies of many traditionally White nations, especially the United States, are in violation of part (c) and possibly part (d). White nations have been subverted to conditions that heavily favor non-White immigration, restrict White birthrates, and encourage and support non-White birthrates, and are thus calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the White race. There are many quotations of politicians, professors, and pundits advocating this very point -– the end of the White race. Genocide is not always an act of traditional murder. The United Nations Convention on Genocide covers violent genocide with parts (a) and (b). However, the remaining definitions cover indirect and incremental methods to clarify that any form of genocide is punishable under international law.
The United States employed an explicitly pro-White immigration policy for the entirety of its two centuries of existence until the treasonous 1965 Immigration Act, which reversed this safeguard and subverted American immigration policy to discriminate against White Europeans in favor of non-White immigration. Prior to the 1965 Act, American immigration policy favored White European immigration to maintain the status quo of the American population. The behind-the-scenes architects of the 1965 Act realized that overwhelmingly non-White legal immigration would inevitably reduce the White American population over time. The political front men of the 1965 Act, such as Ted Kennedy, falsely assured the American public that the new immigration policy would not upset the racial balance of America. In 1965, America was approximately 89 percent White. Just a few generations later, America is around 65 percent White. In one more generation, White Americans will be a minority in their own country.
Illegal aliens create further demographic chaos, as White Americans are crowded out and out-bred by millions of mestizo illegal aliens from South America. Despite overwhelming public desire to seal the border and to deport and deny entry to illegal aliens, the federal government has willfully ignored its mandate to protect against all threats, foreign and domestic. Non-White legal immigrants and tens of millions of mestizo illegal alien invaders will dispossess the White American majority in the next few decades. White Americans will become a minority in their own nation.
Overwhelmingly non-White legal immigration and millions of non-White illegal aliens are inherently destructive to the White American population. Welfare and social benefit policies financially reward the generally poorer non-White groups for having large broods of children. Preferential hiring policies set aside jobs for non-Whites. Lax enforcement of employment law allows non-Whites to undercut the wages of educated White American citizens. The appalling aspect of these trends is that most of these policies, such as welfare, food stamps, and free emergency medical care, are predominantly financed by White American taxpayers. These White American taxpayers labor under conditions calculated to bring about their genocide as the progressive income tax discourages the most productive White Americans from having children.
Educated, self-reliant, and law-abiding White American taxpayers face the greatest disincentives to having large families. Instead, these White taxpayers work hard but are forced to financially support criminals, illegal aliens, and welfare abusers. The taxes paid by hardworking White citizens are transferred to illiterate illegal aliens to bankroll large broods of anchor babies that will produce an ever-increasing amount of welfare obligations and future criminals. The White American population dwindles while the non-White populations exponentially increase, further straining the welfare system, crowding prison cells, diluting educational standards, and destroying formerly safe White neighborhoods. White Americans face incremental genocide by design, which is precisely why so many fail to recognize the creeping trend. Genocide need not be associated with machetes, firing squads, or executions. The type of genocide White Americans face is far more subtle, which makes it all the more dangerous.
To deny White citizens of White nations the right to preserve themselves – biologically, ethnically, and culturally – is the true example of racism and hatred. Genocide is never acceptable. What can be more racist than the systematic eradication of an entire race? White Americans need not be ashamed of identifying on a racial basis, as every other race in America has a political license to do so. La Raza, the League of United Latino American Citizens, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith are all bound by racial or ethnic ties.
White Americans are now approaching minority status in the nation their forefathers fought for and built from the ground up. If the current birthrates continue, White Americans will be a minority group in a few generations. White Americans must be free to object to the immigration policy of White genocide without being shouted down as “racists”, a term which has lost potency due to its use as a political tool to silence White advocacy. “Racist” is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence a person who wishes to protect his or her race from extinction – a person who opposes genocide. “Racist” is an empty slur meant to shut down debate, silence White people, and obfuscate the reality of White genocide.
White Americans must be free to describe racial injustices committed against White people. Introduce the term “anti-White” to mainstream political discourse in the only way possible – by starting with private conversation. The mainstream media attempts to mold public opinion, but when there is an seismic shift in American thought, the press has no choice but to bow to popular pressure. Demand an end to White genocide and anti-White policies.
White Americans have the same claims to identity, organization, advocacy, and existence as does any other group in America. Take a principled, adamant, and vocal stand against White genocide. Talk to neighbors and inform friends. Write letters to editors, television producers, media figures, and especially politicians. Let the muffled White voice clear its throat and speak up clearly and forcefully after decades of silence. Turn the tables and take back the moral high ground. The truth is dangerous, which is precisely why slurs like “racist” are currently used to shout down reasonable opposition to White genocide. Brush aside such denunciations, or better yet, mount the offense with a counterattack.
Anyone who opposes a return to traditional American immigration policies is pro-White genocide. Anyone who supports amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens is pro-White genocide. The current American immigration policy discriminates against White Europeans and is pro-White genocide. There is nothing more racist than genocide, because it is the destruction of an entire race. If someone shouts “racist!” in a petty attempt to silence debate, explain that a real racist is someone who wants to commit genocide against the White race. Stop White genocide one conversation, one talking point, one letter, one complaint, one comment, one remark, and one person at a time. Stay on a consistent message against White genocide.
The White race of the future, if there is to be one, will be grateful.
- 30 -
Friday, May 18, 2012
The Integrity of Race
by Jud Cyllorn
(British Columbia)
I am the son of a soldier, a taxpayer, a risk taker and an unauthorized guardian of what my Dad perceived as the 'collective good' in our society. From paying his bills on time, to never living beyond his means, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, to respecting people as well as the law - these were the principles that I saw respected each and every day.
Throughout the 160-year history as Upper Canadians as well as Canadians, my ancestors cleared land, financed and built docks, barns, bridges, roads, municipal halls, lobbied railway companies to build a station in their small town, volunteered as policemen and firemen, sat on school and church building committees and, like my own father, volunteered as soldiers when patriotism came knocking.
Heritage Train, from Towns That Moved
With each year that passed, a greater sense of permanence was created than the year before. A progressive ethic dominated the times that enabled pre-confederation Canadians to continually see the fruits of their labour before them. They were truly the 'Sons of Progress.' These people asked for little tolerance from society, yet generation after generation they earned much respect.
This is my Canadian heritage and for my insistence on the achievements of my ancestry and their peers being justifiably recognized, rather than today's relentless condemnations, I am called a Racist.
In the last thirty years, the philosophy of those individuals that built this country has been found guilty of 'Sins of Progress', and there has been an obvious lack of recognition for any of the benefits of this philosophy. Those who shared no part in the progress of Canada becoming a nation present themselves as victims of the peculiar sin of nation-building. Thus today's media-driven society continually demands that these Nation-building Canadians ignore their progressive heritage and make amends for their 'sins.'
My ancestral heritage has historically defied the natural environment, thus creating the progressive changes from building landing docks to financing and building railroads that future generations of immigrants from the old world immediately benefited from upon their arrival to Canada. My defiance of the natural environment is no different from my Great-Great-Great Grandfather's in 1832. His goal upon landing in the Bay of Chaleur in New Brunswick was to create, not destroy. It was to build, to forge and to grow, not to destroy something of anyone else's. He sought to develop a society that mirrored his own beliefs, that protected people of any race, that insisted on freedom of the press, that protected children under the legal age and strongly believed that every man was due a fair trial.
Individually and collectively through a common ethic these early Canadians established a social order that was different than that of both Britain and the neighbouring United States, yet similar to all at the same time. Foreign immigrants, after Confederation, witnessed a combination of Britain's family class and the American's monied class upon their arrival to Canada. Thus the British family class provided the institutional order (e.g. the common law / court system) and the American monied class provided the opportunities to the early Canadian social order.
This made assimilation easier in Canada than in the rest of the colonies. Each individual as well as social group earned their own respect as they marked out their own social territories. Irish, Finns, Norseman, Swedes, Poles, Ukrainians, French or Jews they all had their own level of assimilation; individually or in concert.
When someone called a newly-arrived immigrant a name, defaming their race, in actuality, it was pointing out their naivete or indifference to the social laws of the land. There were no Human Rights Tribunals to run to, nor was the media a sympathetic ear to voice one's complaints. Records of newspapers published in British Columbia 100 years ago will prove that there was a higher disregard for the non-assimilating immigrants by the media than we've been led to believe. Prior to 1960, immigrants to this continent either adopted the social laws of the land, lived in isolation or faced being ostracised in the more urban areas.
But that's all gone now.
Today, I'm to respect everyone else's heritage but my own. I have the only heritage scarred by the 'Sins of Progress.' There are societies within the new Canadian culture that consume but don't progress. And apparently, according to our courts, these societies are not responsible for any of the 'Sins of Progress.' Our courts demand tolerance of other societies' social codes without examination or debate, while I witness standards of my own heritage being crushed under the weight of judicially controlled morality.
The word Racist has now become the all-encompassing word that shrieks out the names of the Politically Incorrect, those 'responsible' for the bad and the evil deeds of history. It gives the accuser an unrelenting position, aided by a morally-rudderless society and a righteous media - the accused has no defence. He must stand trial before the media court that, like his heartless accusers, will prosecute and sentence the accused in absentia, to a political and/or financial death.
TOLERANCE
The people who share the Western Culture are being attacked by a politically funded army of 'Culture Crushers' whose religion is power and whose fuel is fear. These 'Culture Crushers' have demanded, in the name of equality and rights, that I stand trial for the sins of my heritage. Now that I realize that the progressive philosophy of the Western Culture carries a large Reparation Tax, passed by law, to pay off those who claim to be the victims of that progressive philosophy, I find that I cannot accept this as being fair.
For those persons who share the bond of the Western Culture, all must now begrudgingly carry a larger tax load because of these 'sins'. If we protest, we will be tried by the political/ media courts for Racism and sentenced by the court of controlled public opinion to a political death. My ancestral heritage is that of resisting plutocratic oligarchies (e.g. Magna Carta). Resisting such oppression - socially, economically and politically - is part of my culture, an inherent right built into the societal code of my own people.
Remember, Western man said everyone was equal before the eyes of God and the law. They were not equal in any other way, thus the philosophy of respect for each other as individuals rather than a legislated form of equality. I come from a heritage of self-governing people and the overlying tone to the laws they created was Fairness not equality. What courtroom do I stand before and argue that my heritage is being vandalized by placing someone's political rights ahead of what is fair for all?
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Today's politicians and our forever righteous media laud those still suffering from historical wrongs and ruthlessly condemn any one who dares challenge politically acceptable interpretations of historical events. My response to this dogma was, in the beginning, to acquire more knowledge. Based on what I discovered, I now find myself in a state of aggressive contempt for those who, because of their self-serving beliefs, gender, sexual preference or skin colour, have beneficial status in the new quota system called 'Affirmative Action.'
This is our own version of 60s bussing, but for adults not school children.
Rather than swapping urban ghetto kids for suburban kids like the Americans, Canadians affirmatively displace some people and replace them with different people based on their sex, skin colour, etc. Any who dares question the logic of this special, largely racial 'quota system' will be tried as a Racist and sentenced within 48 hours. When American legislators are asked today about bussing, they all conveniently find nice politically correct places to hide by saying,'We meant well but how were we to know?'
Those accused of racism by special interest groups, or by our pervasively righteous media, have no access to the 'People's Court' (television or print). Thus the death sentence proceeds with the accused not even being allowed to address the charge. Having no medium for defence, the accused is guaranteed a
quick death and no funeral.
Would a philosophical mind not ask the accusers just how adequately equipped are they to judge the racist acts or thoughts of others? Are they ready to sentence someone to a political / financial death, ignoring the consequences of being wrong? Did they have to write a qualifying exam? Is there a racist identification program at some redundant college that certifies graduates as having 'Racist Identifying Privileges' (R.I.P.s)? Is there a quota on who gets in the program? Finally, is it funded by a 'special' federal program?
I think my beliefs as a Canadian with 160 years of heritage on this continent have been sentenced to death by those with R.I.P. But I am not going to die. I am also not going to roll over and play dead nor become a living ghost as has happened to many of those who have for example questioned the financial affairs of war in this century. My heritage is that of making things better than they were before and, unlike many others, I can prove that - not only on this continent but on two others.
In a society where money rules man, my heritage will always lose. The Shackles of Guilt are the means used to surrender the proven benefits of creative individualism to the dogmas of the political 'World Order'. But soon the buildings, the bridges, the highways, the telephone lines, the hospitals, the sewers and the social order will all need rebuilding.
Please remember these creations are only the physical expression of the philosophically progressive attitudes of Western thinking. I dare any one to examine those societies most in need of repair and note the amount of rejection of Western philosophy by its inhabitants.
Those among us today who have crushed the progressive culture for their indefinable Equality, will be first to demand that society be repaired. Our post 60s society has taught our youth as well as new Canadians to demand repairs to the tangible and intangible structures supporting our society, but not how to create them.
Will those 'equalled' go to the equalizers (our courts, social workers or media) to fix the dysfunctional infrastructure or will they go to the global equalizers for technical expertise. When our nation's 'equals' dial 911 (getting put on hold for an indefinite time) and their call is no longer an emergency but a catastrophe, will they cease to believe the Egalitarian messengers? Nowhere has 'equality' created market order, only long lines of disillusioned souls waiting patiently for the promise of unearned rewards.
My goals, like my God, are always fair, as were those of the five generations of Canadians before me. I seek the association of similar philosophies as a form of protection and secondly, but most importantly, to enhance the heritage of progress. I do this for my own benefit, for the benefit of all those around me and for those Canadians that are now not seen nor heard but will be responsible for the type of society Canada becomes 50 to 100 years from now.
For this I am called a Racist? So be it.
This article appeared in Council of Public Affairs Digest, Vol. VIII, Nos. 9 and 10 (September l October 1992) under the title 'Culture Crushers'. The Digest is edited by E.M. Pressler, and we are deeply grateful to Mrs. Pressler for her encouragement and help with information. Jud Cyllorn is a writer, author and lecturer.
- 30 -
(British Columbia)
I am the son of a soldier, a taxpayer, a risk taker and an unauthorized guardian of what my Dad perceived as the 'collective good' in our society. From paying his bills on time, to never living beyond his means, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, to respecting people as well as the law - these were the principles that I saw respected each and every day.
Throughout the 160-year history as Upper Canadians as well as Canadians, my ancestors cleared land, financed and built docks, barns, bridges, roads, municipal halls, lobbied railway companies to build a station in their small town, volunteered as policemen and firemen, sat on school and church building committees and, like my own father, volunteered as soldiers when patriotism came knocking.
Heritage Train, from Towns That Moved
With each year that passed, a greater sense of permanence was created than the year before. A progressive ethic dominated the times that enabled pre-confederation Canadians to continually see the fruits of their labour before them. They were truly the 'Sons of Progress.' These people asked for little tolerance from society, yet generation after generation they earned much respect.
This is my Canadian heritage and for my insistence on the achievements of my ancestry and their peers being justifiably recognized, rather than today's relentless condemnations, I am called a Racist.
In the last thirty years, the philosophy of those individuals that built this country has been found guilty of 'Sins of Progress', and there has been an obvious lack of recognition for any of the benefits of this philosophy. Those who shared no part in the progress of Canada becoming a nation present themselves as victims of the peculiar sin of nation-building. Thus today's media-driven society continually demands that these Nation-building Canadians ignore their progressive heritage and make amends for their 'sins.'
My ancestral heritage has historically defied the natural environment, thus creating the progressive changes from building landing docks to financing and building railroads that future generations of immigrants from the old world immediately benefited from upon their arrival to Canada. My defiance of the natural environment is no different from my Great-Great-Great Grandfather's in 1832. His goal upon landing in the Bay of Chaleur in New Brunswick was to create, not destroy. It was to build, to forge and to grow, not to destroy something of anyone else's. He sought to develop a society that mirrored his own beliefs, that protected people of any race, that insisted on freedom of the press, that protected children under the legal age and strongly believed that every man was due a fair trial.
Individually and collectively through a common ethic these early Canadians established a social order that was different than that of both Britain and the neighbouring United States, yet similar to all at the same time. Foreign immigrants, after Confederation, witnessed a combination of Britain's family class and the American's monied class upon their arrival to Canada. Thus the British family class provided the institutional order (e.g. the common law / court system) and the American monied class provided the opportunities to the early Canadian social order.
This made assimilation easier in Canada than in the rest of the colonies. Each individual as well as social group earned their own respect as they marked out their own social territories. Irish, Finns, Norseman, Swedes, Poles, Ukrainians, French or Jews they all had their own level of assimilation; individually or in concert.
When someone called a newly-arrived immigrant a name, defaming their race, in actuality, it was pointing out their naivete or indifference to the social laws of the land. There were no Human Rights Tribunals to run to, nor was the media a sympathetic ear to voice one's complaints. Records of newspapers published in British Columbia 100 years ago will prove that there was a higher disregard for the non-assimilating immigrants by the media than we've been led to believe. Prior to 1960, immigrants to this continent either adopted the social laws of the land, lived in isolation or faced being ostracised in the more urban areas.
But that's all gone now.
Today, I'm to respect everyone else's heritage but my own. I have the only heritage scarred by the 'Sins of Progress.' There are societies within the new Canadian culture that consume but don't progress. And apparently, according to our courts, these societies are not responsible for any of the 'Sins of Progress.' Our courts demand tolerance of other societies' social codes without examination or debate, while I witness standards of my own heritage being crushed under the weight of judicially controlled morality.
The word Racist has now become the all-encompassing word that shrieks out the names of the Politically Incorrect, those 'responsible' for the bad and the evil deeds of history. It gives the accuser an unrelenting position, aided by a morally-rudderless society and a righteous media - the accused has no defence. He must stand trial before the media court that, like his heartless accusers, will prosecute and sentence the accused in absentia, to a political and/or financial death.
TOLERANCE
The people who share the Western Culture are being attacked by a politically funded army of 'Culture Crushers' whose religion is power and whose fuel is fear. These 'Culture Crushers' have demanded, in the name of equality and rights, that I stand trial for the sins of my heritage. Now that I realize that the progressive philosophy of the Western Culture carries a large Reparation Tax, passed by law, to pay off those who claim to be the victims of that progressive philosophy, I find that I cannot accept this as being fair.
For those persons who share the bond of the Western Culture, all must now begrudgingly carry a larger tax load because of these 'sins'. If we protest, we will be tried by the political/ media courts for Racism and sentenced by the court of controlled public opinion to a political death. My ancestral heritage is that of resisting plutocratic oligarchies (e.g. Magna Carta). Resisting such oppression - socially, economically and politically - is part of my culture, an inherent right built into the societal code of my own people.
Remember, Western man said everyone was equal before the eyes of God and the law. They were not equal in any other way, thus the philosophy of respect for each other as individuals rather than a legislated form of equality. I come from a heritage of self-governing people and the overlying tone to the laws they created was Fairness not equality. What courtroom do I stand before and argue that my heritage is being vandalized by placing someone's political rights ahead of what is fair for all?
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Today's politicians and our forever righteous media laud those still suffering from historical wrongs and ruthlessly condemn any one who dares challenge politically acceptable interpretations of historical events. My response to this dogma was, in the beginning, to acquire more knowledge. Based on what I discovered, I now find myself in a state of aggressive contempt for those who, because of their self-serving beliefs, gender, sexual preference or skin colour, have beneficial status in the new quota system called 'Affirmative Action.'
This is our own version of 60s bussing, but for adults not school children.
Rather than swapping urban ghetto kids for suburban kids like the Americans, Canadians affirmatively displace some people and replace them with different people based on their sex, skin colour, etc. Any who dares question the logic of this special, largely racial 'quota system' will be tried as a Racist and sentenced within 48 hours. When American legislators are asked today about bussing, they all conveniently find nice politically correct places to hide by saying,'We meant well but how were we to know?'
Those accused of racism by special interest groups, or by our pervasively righteous media, have no access to the 'People's Court' (television or print). Thus the death sentence proceeds with the accused not even being allowed to address the charge. Having no medium for defence, the accused is guaranteed a
quick death and no funeral.
Would a philosophical mind not ask the accusers just how adequately equipped are they to judge the racist acts or thoughts of others? Are they ready to sentence someone to a political / financial death, ignoring the consequences of being wrong? Did they have to write a qualifying exam? Is there a racist identification program at some redundant college that certifies graduates as having 'Racist Identifying Privileges' (R.I.P.s)? Is there a quota on who gets in the program? Finally, is it funded by a 'special' federal program?
I think my beliefs as a Canadian with 160 years of heritage on this continent have been sentenced to death by those with R.I.P. But I am not going to die. I am also not going to roll over and play dead nor become a living ghost as has happened to many of those who have for example questioned the financial affairs of war in this century. My heritage is that of making things better than they were before and, unlike many others, I can prove that - not only on this continent but on two others.
In a society where money rules man, my heritage will always lose. The Shackles of Guilt are the means used to surrender the proven benefits of creative individualism to the dogmas of the political 'World Order'. But soon the buildings, the bridges, the highways, the telephone lines, the hospitals, the sewers and the social order will all need rebuilding.
Please remember these creations are only the physical expression of the philosophically progressive attitudes of Western thinking. I dare any one to examine those societies most in need of repair and note the amount of rejection of Western philosophy by its inhabitants.
Those among us today who have crushed the progressive culture for their indefinable Equality, will be first to demand that society be repaired. Our post 60s society has taught our youth as well as new Canadians to demand repairs to the tangible and intangible structures supporting our society, but not how to create them.
Will those 'equalled' go to the equalizers (our courts, social workers or media) to fix the dysfunctional infrastructure or will they go to the global equalizers for technical expertise. When our nation's 'equals' dial 911 (getting put on hold for an indefinite time) and their call is no longer an emergency but a catastrophe, will they cease to believe the Egalitarian messengers? Nowhere has 'equality' created market order, only long lines of disillusioned souls waiting patiently for the promise of unearned rewards.
My goals, like my God, are always fair, as were those of the five generations of Canadians before me. I seek the association of similar philosophies as a form of protection and secondly, but most importantly, to enhance the heritage of progress. I do this for my own benefit, for the benefit of all those around me and for those Canadians that are now not seen nor heard but will be responsible for the type of society Canada becomes 50 to 100 years from now.
For this I am called a Racist? So be it.
This article appeared in Council of Public Affairs Digest, Vol. VIII, Nos. 9 and 10 (September l October 1992) under the title 'Culture Crushers'. The Digest is edited by E.M. Pressler, and we are deeply grateful to Mrs. Pressler for her encouragement and help with information. Jud Cyllorn is a writer, author and lecturer.
- 30 -
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Discrimination and Government Financing of Political Fronts
Promoting "Socialism"
To: ministre@mddep.gouv.qc.cat
UPDATE: Pierre Arcand never replied to this following letter. He was re-elected by the fools who live in Cote-des-Neiges last September 4th, 2012.
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Pierre Arcand
Député de Mont-Royal
Parti libéral du Québec
Ministère du Développement durable,
de l'Environnement et des Parcs
141, avenue Président-Kennedy, 8e étage
Montréal (Québec) H2X 1Y4
Téléphone : 514 864-8500
Télécopieur : 514 864-8503
Circonscription
3400, rue Jean-Talon Ouest
Bureau 100
Montréal (Québec) H3R 2E8
Téléphone : 514 341-1151
Télécopieur : 514 341-4777
ministre@mddep.gouv.qc.ca
[1] Discrimination
[2] Government Financing Of A "Charity" As A Political Front Promoting "Socialism"
6767 Côte-des-Neiges Boulevard, Montreal
1. I moved into Côte des Neiges over 3 years ago. I am a white, English-speaking, bilingual female CANADIAN, descended from the Founding Peoples of Canada on all sides.
2. I joined the MultiCaf, where I am therefore a member, entitled to use the facilities, and where I have attended an Annual General Meeting. (Addresses and details, below.) I also have a computer room membership card with my photo on it, to prove it.
3. As a Côte des Neiges resident, I am also entitled to the use of facilities at the Côte des Neiges Community Center. As a MultiCaf member, I was also told, along with over 100 other members in attendance at an Annual General Meeting, that I have FREE access to the two rooms permanently reserved for the MultiCaf on the 6th floor at the Côte des Neiges Community Center where MultiCaf sponsors the Chinese people of Côte des Neiges with FREE ROOMS at the Community Center for Chinese activities.
At the annual general meeting, MultiCaf members were told: MultiCaf has TWO MORE ROOMS reserved on the 6th floor of the Community Center, that are prepaid, and most of the time are going to waste, because not used by anyone. We were specifically told that, as MultiCaf Members, we can also use those rooms, free of charge, whenever they are available. I decided to use them.
However, Christian Lefebvre, who has made it clear to me, in the most malicious manner possible that he is stalking me, and has stalked me since I lived in Park Extension four years ago, where I never knew the man, interfered between MultiCaf and the Community Center to deny me -- a Multicaf member -- access to the MultiCaf rooms on the 6th floor at the Community Center.
That malicious interference was more than a year ago.
Upon being maliciously denied access to the MultiCaf rooms, I then asked to have what any other resident of Côte des Neiges is entitled to: a free office at the Community Center for a non-profit activity. My non-profit activity was to promote knowledge of the Constitution and history of Canada through a club called Founding Canadians 1867, and in French, Fonder Le Canada 1867.
My request was instantly met with the most extraordinary hostility, and I was explicitly told, to my face, that I would not be given a free community office for the purpose of a Canadian constitutional group. I was ordered, instead, "DO SOMETHING FOR THE IMMIGRANTS," as if I have no rights as a Canadian to teach my history and culture on my own soil.
The only politically correct, acceptable "Social Activity" for me is to cater to the immigrant foreigners, and not to the Constitution and Founding Peoples of Canada, who apparently have ZERO rights in Canada, as I do, as far as these organizations are concerned. Let's see if the so-called "Liberal" government agrees.
Subsequent to these astonishing events in which a Canadian has been openly denied access to services publicly declared available to everyone, it has become apparent to me that largely socialist-communist activities are being government-financed out of these so-called "Community" hubs in Côte des Neiges; and apparently the only activities and opinions "respected" in Côte des Neiges are those "officially approved" and brainwashed into the Community by the apparently government-funded pro-Communist "Community Development Center" which also has its office on the 6th floor of the Community Center, and which had denied me the right to use the MultiCaf rooms, and has denied me the right to a free office to launch a Constitutional club for Founding Canadians.
Last week, while I was in the Lobby of the Community Center, a woman came downstairs with a box of flyers she planned to put out on the public shelf unit. I heard her say, in English, that "she does not agree" with it, but she is obliged to distribute flyers promoting "sexual diversity". I commented, "that is brainwashing", and I was moreover stunned that the government would finance the dissemination of Marxist ideology in a public place, which clearly violates basic political and democratic rules of play. I said to the woman that so-called "sexual diversity" is damaging to the family.
The reply I got was astonishing, considering it came from a woman who "disagrees" with teaching "sexual diversity". She shut me up, declaring I had no right to say such things, "YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS," she declared self-righteously. Apparently, this woman has been trained as a Marxist "change agent" to pretend to oppose these Trotskyist "values" so that she can simply draw out anyone else opposed, and shut them up and deny them respect for their opinion.
Let me illustrate for you just what these Trotskyist "values" mean in practical terms, otherwise known as Mr. Trudeau's "Just Society".
It means men having their PENISES cut off surgically and PLASTIC TITS injected, so they can call themselves "trannies" or "T-Girls".
It means converting to LESBIANISM and publicly shoving your tongue down some girl's throat to prove how "free" and "liberated" you are. Apparently, it also means chasing former so-called Liberal Paul Hellyer from one alien landing site to another:
[1] http://www.trudeausociety.com/about_us.html
[2] http://www.trudeausociety.com/transgender_transsexual.html
[3] http://www.trudeausociety.com/sexuality.html
[4] http://www.trudeausociety.com/home/Frontpage/2008/03/17/01293.html
4. I would like the Minister to explain to me why a white Canadian, who wishes to teach the Canadian Constitution and history on Canadian soil, is denied a free office for her proposed non-profit activity, but foreigners of all kinds and colors all have free offices teaching and promoting foreign cultures and languages, and Marxism, on Canadian soil.
5. This so-called government appears to be financing and underwriting the cultural genocide of people who -- naturally, legally, and hardly unexpectedly in the light of LEGAL FEDERALISM -- consider themselves Founding Canadians, entitled and determined to protect, teach and promote their Canadian history, Constitution and culture on their soil.
6. Why am I treated as a third-class citizen and ordered to kowtow to foreigners instead of teaching and practising my own law, history and culture, according to my own personal interests, for the benefit of MY race, culture and country?
My grandfather went to war for this country, specifically to free it from Communism, and now his granddaughter is denied equality with foreigners on her own soil, while government tax money is illegally squandered to indoctrinate the public in political ideologies they did not vote for, such as Communism, Socialism, and Trotskyism.
CONCLUSIONS:
I demand to know how much GOVERNMENT MONEY is shovelled into:
[a] immigrant cultures, foreign laguages and activities, and multiculturalism at the Côte des Neiges Community Center, i.e., including FREE OFFICES in the so-called "social economy", and other taxpayer-funded support.
[b] the CORPORATION DE DÉVELOPPEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE DE CÔTE-DES-NEIGES, Numéro d'entreprise du Québec (NEQ) 1143965292
695-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges
Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
This organization is supposedly run by THOMAS MILLS, but his name is NOT on the government's current register of Administrators for this entity at CIDREQ.
This organization is openly promoting socialism and Marxism, including urging residents to demand "redistribution of wealth" in 2-color flyers printed and circulated at great expense throughout the community, while DICTATING the political and social "values" we are ALL supposed to adhere to, while calling it "democracy". Obviously, a dictatorship which deprives you of the right to think, discuss, and express your own views, is not a "democracy".
This organization has existed since at least the late 1980s, and has apparently seized control of every grass-roots group in a 5-mile radius, and has apparently sucked in ALL community groups, no matter who launched them, in order to dictate to and mould the lot of them to socialist-Marxist "values" dictated by this organization.
The MultiCaf, of which I am a member, is one of the organizations under the dictatorial umbrella of this government-funded "Corporation De Développement Communautaire De Côte-Des-Neiges".
This organization declares that it operates in the following "sector" of activity:
CAE
Organisations civiques et amicales
Regrouper Organismes Communautaires/Travail Communautaire De Concertation
In other words, it is a non-profit "charity". However, it really appears to be functioning as a political front, to short-circuit elected representation, and to undermine Parliamentary functioning by seditiously indoctrinating vast populations who have recourse to community groups, with Communism.
No government, at any level, has any legal right to pay for this.
NB: I want to know where the salaries are coming from to run this thing; I want to know how much they benefit financially from their free offices, and where they get their annual operating capital.
And I want to know why a so-called "charitable" organization which is privately incorporated, is, in fact, largely government funded, and acting as a political front for Marxism.
If this organization wants to promote Socialism, it can do so on its own time and nickel, and not with a dime of government money, but it will first have to register as a political party and see if anyone will vote for it. Then, we will learn if a valid oath can be had, to exercise such vote, if they manage to win a seat.
I wrote to this organization over a year ago, requesting to know the source of the ideologies they are teaching. I had an answer back, asking me who I am. I replied by sending my Facebook page, and I have never heard from them since. Which is no surprise, because this political front is non-elected and thus non-accountable.
The current board of directors is below, and I want to know the salaries and benefits of each and every person employed by this organization, because I am entitled to know who is benefiting and how much, for the "friendly" "non-profit" task of socially re-engineering the political views of 100,000 people in this neighborhood on the taxpayer's nickel.
Moreover, these people control the entire "Community Center" building, which is a 7 or 8-storey all-equipped glass and cement office low-rise with maintenance and utilities. I would like to know HOW DID THESE PEOPLE QUALIFY FOR THE USE AND CONTROL OF THIS ENTIRE BUILDING, which a handful of years ago, was a major office of the Montreal Rental Board (Régie du Logement), with bailiffs' offices below and hearing rooms above. You would have to be very well connected to grab a PRIZE like this, which no doubt is providing everybody on this list with excellent wages and benefits:
Membres du conseil d'administration
Djebbar, Fatma
Vice-président
498-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
Lefebvre, Christian
Secrétaire
101-6767 Côte des Neiges Montréal Québec H3S2T6 Canada
Besancenot, Bernard
Trésorier
360-3600 RUE Barclay Montréal Québec H3S1K5 Canada
Bibeau, Ginette
Administrateur
3333 Côte Sainte-Catherine Montréal Québec H3S2A5 Canada
Richard-webb, Anne
Président
597-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
BELEC, DENISE
Trésorier
344-3600 av. Barclay Montréal (Québec) H3S1K5 Canada
BIBEAU, GINETTE
Président
3333, CHEMIN CÔTE STE-CATHERINE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3S2A5
MARTIN, JOCELYNE
4605 rue Bouchette Montréal (Québec) H3W1C6 Canada
LESER, LAURENCE
Secrétaire
599-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
TREMBLAY, LOUISE
Vice-président
596-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
[c] All the same information is required for the Multi Caf:
La Caféteria Communautaire Multi Caf
Numéro d'entreprise du Québec (NEQ) 1143699263
320-3600 av. Barclay
Montréal (Québec) H3S1K5 Canada
CAE
Organisations civiques et amicales
CAFÉTÉRIA COMMUNAUTAIRE, BANQUE ALIMENTAIRE
There are between 11 and 25 salaried employees living off this charity. I want to know their names, titles and wages. The administrators are listed as follows:
FOY, NORMAN
Président
4910 boul. Édouard-Montpetit Montréal (Québec) H3W1P9 Canada
MOHAMMED, PARTOVI
Administrateur
1-3881 av. Linton Montréal (Québec) H3S1T3 Canada
LANDRY, ALAIN
Administrateur
320-3600 av. Barclay Montréal (Québec) H3S1K5 Canada
CÔTÉ, ROGER
Administrateur
500-1801 boul. De Maisonneuve O Montréal (Québec) H3H1J9 Canada
AMYOT, WALDECK
Administrateur
21-4200 rue Bouchette Montréal (Québec) H3S1J2 Canada
LANIEL, JEAN-PIERRE
Administrateur
207-5785 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S1Y8 Canada
KEMP, TERRY
Administrateur
2745, RUE BEDFORD, APP. 17 MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3S2G7
TANGUAY, SUZANNE
Trésorier
4361 1e Avenue Laval (Québec) H7R2X8 Canada
[d] I want all political activities promoting communism, socialism and Marxism on the governmen nickel STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.
[e] And I demand equal time, equal facilities, and equal respect for my White, English-French-Irish Canadian roots, history, constitution and culture on my soil. Because, contrary to so-called Prime Minister Stephen Harper lying through his teeth, Canada is NOT a "nation of immigrants". It is a legal federation of its founding peoples, and I demand respect for me and my roots, as such.
Govern Yourselves Accordingly.
Founding Canadians 1867
Fonder Le Canada 1867
__________________________
Kathleen Moore Pageot
P.S. A copy of this letter is going on the Internet.
UPDATE: Pierre Arcand never replied to this following letter. He was re-elected by the fools who live in Cote-des-Neiges last September 4th, 2012.
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Pierre Arcand
Député de Mont-Royal
Parti libéral du Québec
Ministère du Développement durable,
de l'Environnement et des Parcs
141, avenue Président-Kennedy, 8e étage
Montréal (Québec) H2X 1Y4
Téléphone : 514 864-8500
Télécopieur : 514 864-8503
Circonscription
3400, rue Jean-Talon Ouest
Bureau 100
Montréal (Québec) H3R 2E8
Téléphone : 514 341-1151
Télécopieur : 514 341-4777
ministre@mddep.gouv.qc.ca
[1] Discrimination
[2] Government Financing Of A "Charity" As A Political Front Promoting "Socialism"
6767 Côte-des-Neiges Boulevard, Montreal
1. I moved into Côte des Neiges over 3 years ago. I am a white, English-speaking, bilingual female CANADIAN, descended from the Founding Peoples of Canada on all sides.
2. I joined the MultiCaf, where I am therefore a member, entitled to use the facilities, and where I have attended an Annual General Meeting. (Addresses and details, below.) I also have a computer room membership card with my photo on it, to prove it.
3. As a Côte des Neiges resident, I am also entitled to the use of facilities at the Côte des Neiges Community Center. As a MultiCaf member, I was also told, along with over 100 other members in attendance at an Annual General Meeting, that I have FREE access to the two rooms permanently reserved for the MultiCaf on the 6th floor at the Côte des Neiges Community Center where MultiCaf sponsors the Chinese people of Côte des Neiges with FREE ROOMS at the Community Center for Chinese activities.
At the annual general meeting, MultiCaf members were told: MultiCaf has TWO MORE ROOMS reserved on the 6th floor of the Community Center, that are prepaid, and most of the time are going to waste, because not used by anyone. We were specifically told that, as MultiCaf Members, we can also use those rooms, free of charge, whenever they are available. I decided to use them.
However, Christian Lefebvre, who has made it clear to me, in the most malicious manner possible that he is stalking me, and has stalked me since I lived in Park Extension four years ago, where I never knew the man, interfered between MultiCaf and the Community Center to deny me -- a Multicaf member -- access to the MultiCaf rooms on the 6th floor at the Community Center.
That malicious interference was more than a year ago.
Upon being maliciously denied access to the MultiCaf rooms, I then asked to have what any other resident of Côte des Neiges is entitled to: a free office at the Community Center for a non-profit activity. My non-profit activity was to promote knowledge of the Constitution and history of Canada through a club called Founding Canadians 1867, and in French, Fonder Le Canada 1867.
My request was instantly met with the most extraordinary hostility, and I was explicitly told, to my face, that I would not be given a free community office for the purpose of a Canadian constitutional group. I was ordered, instead, "DO SOMETHING FOR THE IMMIGRANTS," as if I have no rights as a Canadian to teach my history and culture on my own soil.
The only politically correct, acceptable "Social Activity" for me is to cater to the immigrant foreigners, and not to the Constitution and Founding Peoples of Canada, who apparently have ZERO rights in Canada, as I do, as far as these organizations are concerned. Let's see if the so-called "Liberal" government agrees.
Subsequent to these astonishing events in which a Canadian has been openly denied access to services publicly declared available to everyone, it has become apparent to me that largely socialist-communist activities are being government-financed out of these so-called "Community" hubs in Côte des Neiges; and apparently the only activities and opinions "respected" in Côte des Neiges are those "officially approved" and brainwashed into the Community by the apparently government-funded pro-Communist "Community Development Center" which also has its office on the 6th floor of the Community Center, and which had denied me the right to use the MultiCaf rooms, and has denied me the right to a free office to launch a Constitutional club for Founding Canadians.
Last week, while I was in the Lobby of the Community Center, a woman came downstairs with a box of flyers she planned to put out on the public shelf unit. I heard her say, in English, that "she does not agree" with it, but she is obliged to distribute flyers promoting "sexual diversity". I commented, "that is brainwashing", and I was moreover stunned that the government would finance the dissemination of Marxist ideology in a public place, which clearly violates basic political and democratic rules of play. I said to the woman that so-called "sexual diversity" is damaging to the family.
The reply I got was astonishing, considering it came from a woman who "disagrees" with teaching "sexual diversity". She shut me up, declaring I had no right to say such things, "YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS," she declared self-righteously. Apparently, this woman has been trained as a Marxist "change agent" to pretend to oppose these Trotskyist "values" so that she can simply draw out anyone else opposed, and shut them up and deny them respect for their opinion.
Let me illustrate for you just what these Trotskyist "values" mean in practical terms, otherwise known as Mr. Trudeau's "Just Society".
It means men having their PENISES cut off surgically and PLASTIC TITS injected, so they can call themselves "trannies" or "T-Girls".
It means converting to LESBIANISM and publicly shoving your tongue down some girl's throat to prove how "free" and "liberated" you are. Apparently, it also means chasing former so-called Liberal Paul Hellyer from one alien landing site to another:
[1] http://www.trudeausociety.com/about_us.html
[2] http://www.trudeausociety.com/transgender_transsexual.html
[3] http://www.trudeausociety.com/sexuality.html
[4] http://www.trudeausociety.com/home/Frontpage/2008/03/17/01293.html
4. I would like the Minister to explain to me why a white Canadian, who wishes to teach the Canadian Constitution and history on Canadian soil, is denied a free office for her proposed non-profit activity, but foreigners of all kinds and colors all have free offices teaching and promoting foreign cultures and languages, and Marxism, on Canadian soil.
5. This so-called government appears to be financing and underwriting the cultural genocide of people who -- naturally, legally, and hardly unexpectedly in the light of LEGAL FEDERALISM -- consider themselves Founding Canadians, entitled and determined to protect, teach and promote their Canadian history, Constitution and culture on their soil.
6. Why am I treated as a third-class citizen and ordered to kowtow to foreigners instead of teaching and practising my own law, history and culture, according to my own personal interests, for the benefit of MY race, culture and country?
My grandfather went to war for this country, specifically to free it from Communism, and now his granddaughter is denied equality with foreigners on her own soil, while government tax money is illegally squandered to indoctrinate the public in political ideologies they did not vote for, such as Communism, Socialism, and Trotskyism.
CONCLUSIONS:
I demand to know how much GOVERNMENT MONEY is shovelled into:
[a] immigrant cultures, foreign laguages and activities, and multiculturalism at the Côte des Neiges Community Center, i.e., including FREE OFFICES in the so-called "social economy", and other taxpayer-funded support.
[b] the CORPORATION DE DÉVELOPPEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE DE CÔTE-DES-NEIGES, Numéro d'entreprise du Québec (NEQ) 1143965292
695-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges
Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
This organization is supposedly run by THOMAS MILLS, but his name is NOT on the government's current register of Administrators for this entity at CIDREQ.
This organization is openly promoting socialism and Marxism, including urging residents to demand "redistribution of wealth" in 2-color flyers printed and circulated at great expense throughout the community, while DICTATING the political and social "values" we are ALL supposed to adhere to, while calling it "democracy". Obviously, a dictatorship which deprives you of the right to think, discuss, and express your own views, is not a "democracy".
This organization has existed since at least the late 1980s, and has apparently seized control of every grass-roots group in a 5-mile radius, and has apparently sucked in ALL community groups, no matter who launched them, in order to dictate to and mould the lot of them to socialist-Marxist "values" dictated by this organization.
The MultiCaf, of which I am a member, is one of the organizations under the dictatorial umbrella of this government-funded "Corporation De Développement Communautaire De Côte-Des-Neiges".
This organization declares that it operates in the following "sector" of activity:
CAE
Organisations civiques et amicales
Regrouper Organismes Communautaires/Travail Communautaire De Concertation
In other words, it is a non-profit "charity". However, it really appears to be functioning as a political front, to short-circuit elected representation, and to undermine Parliamentary functioning by seditiously indoctrinating vast populations who have recourse to community groups, with Communism.
No government, at any level, has any legal right to pay for this.
NB: I want to know where the salaries are coming from to run this thing; I want to know how much they benefit financially from their free offices, and where they get their annual operating capital.
And I want to know why a so-called "charitable" organization which is privately incorporated, is, in fact, largely government funded, and acting as a political front for Marxism.
If this organization wants to promote Socialism, it can do so on its own time and nickel, and not with a dime of government money, but it will first have to register as a political party and see if anyone will vote for it. Then, we will learn if a valid oath can be had, to exercise such vote, if they manage to win a seat.
I wrote to this organization over a year ago, requesting to know the source of the ideologies they are teaching. I had an answer back, asking me who I am. I replied by sending my Facebook page, and I have never heard from them since. Which is no surprise, because this political front is non-elected and thus non-accountable.
The current board of directors is below, and I want to know the salaries and benefits of each and every person employed by this organization, because I am entitled to know who is benefiting and how much, for the "friendly" "non-profit" task of socially re-engineering the political views of 100,000 people in this neighborhood on the taxpayer's nickel.
Moreover, these people control the entire "Community Center" building, which is a 7 or 8-storey all-equipped glass and cement office low-rise with maintenance and utilities. I would like to know HOW DID THESE PEOPLE QUALIFY FOR THE USE AND CONTROL OF THIS ENTIRE BUILDING, which a handful of years ago, was a major office of the Montreal Rental Board (Régie du Logement), with bailiffs' offices below and hearing rooms above. You would have to be very well connected to grab a PRIZE like this, which no doubt is providing everybody on this list with excellent wages and benefits:
Membres du conseil d'administration
Djebbar, Fatma
Vice-président
498-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
Lefebvre, Christian
Secrétaire
101-6767 Côte des Neiges Montréal Québec H3S2T6 Canada
Besancenot, Bernard
Trésorier
360-3600 RUE Barclay Montréal Québec H3S1K5 Canada
Bibeau, Ginette
Administrateur
3333 Côte Sainte-Catherine Montréal Québec H3S2A5 Canada
Richard-webb, Anne
Président
597-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
BELEC, DENISE
Trésorier
344-3600 av. Barclay Montréal (Québec) H3S1K5 Canada
BIBEAU, GINETTE
Président
3333, CHEMIN CÔTE STE-CATHERINE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3S2A5
MARTIN, JOCELYNE
4605 rue Bouchette Montréal (Québec) H3W1C6 Canada
LESER, LAURENCE
Secrétaire
599-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
TREMBLAY, LOUISE
Vice-président
596-6767 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S2T6 Canada
[c] All the same information is required for the Multi Caf:
La Caféteria Communautaire Multi Caf
Numéro d'entreprise du Québec (NEQ) 1143699263
320-3600 av. Barclay
Montréal (Québec) H3S1K5 Canada
CAE
Organisations civiques et amicales
CAFÉTÉRIA COMMUNAUTAIRE, BANQUE ALIMENTAIRE
There are between 11 and 25 salaried employees living off this charity. I want to know their names, titles and wages. The administrators are listed as follows:
FOY, NORMAN
Président
4910 boul. Édouard-Montpetit Montréal (Québec) H3W1P9 Canada
MOHAMMED, PARTOVI
Administrateur
1-3881 av. Linton Montréal (Québec) H3S1T3 Canada
LANDRY, ALAIN
Administrateur
320-3600 av. Barclay Montréal (Québec) H3S1K5 Canada
CÔTÉ, ROGER
Administrateur
500-1801 boul. De Maisonneuve O Montréal (Québec) H3H1J9 Canada
AMYOT, WALDECK
Administrateur
21-4200 rue Bouchette Montréal (Québec) H3S1J2 Canada
LANIEL, JEAN-PIERRE
Administrateur
207-5785 ch. de la Côte-des-Neiges Montréal (Québec) H3S1Y8 Canada
KEMP, TERRY
Administrateur
2745, RUE BEDFORD, APP. 17 MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3S2G7
TANGUAY, SUZANNE
Trésorier
4361 1e Avenue Laval (Québec) H7R2X8 Canada
[d] I want all political activities promoting communism, socialism and Marxism on the governmen nickel STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.
[e] And I demand equal time, equal facilities, and equal respect for my White, English-French-Irish Canadian roots, history, constitution and culture on my soil. Because, contrary to so-called Prime Minister Stephen Harper lying through his teeth, Canada is NOT a "nation of immigrants". It is a legal federation of its founding peoples, and I demand respect for me and my roots, as such.
Govern Yourselves Accordingly.
Founding Canadians 1867
Fonder Le Canada 1867
__________________________
Kathleen Moore Pageot
P.S. A copy of this letter is going on the Internet.
Friday, May 4, 2012
A Cuckoo in the Nest: (A Multiculturalism Allegory)
Republished from WiseGeek:
The expression "cuckoo in the nest" has a range of meanings. It can mean any person or thing found where it doesn't belong, and is also used to mean any problem that grows quickly, consuming resources needed for other purposes. In addition, the term is sometimes used to refer to an illegitimate child. "Cuckoo in the Nest" or "A Cuckoo in the Nest" appears in the title of a 1933 film, a 1970 television program and a 2008 novel, among other works.
The term "cuckoo in the nest" derives from the nesting habits of some species of cuckoo. Over 50 species of European cuckoo and 3 species of New World cuckoo engage in a nesting behavior called brood parasitism. Instead of raising their own young, brood parasites lay their eggs in the nests of other species of bird.
Parasitic cuckoos are host-specific, meaning that each species of cuckoo lays its eggs in the nest of only one other species of bird. Cuckoo eggs have evolved to resemble the eggs of these species, making them difficult to tell apart. When a cuckoo egg hatches, the host bird raises the young cuckoo as one of its own: there is literally a cuckoo in the nest. Cuckoo eggs have a short incubation period and cuckoo young mature quickly, so the young cuckoo has an advantage over the host species young. It usually destroys their eggs or evicts them from the nest, then imitates their cries to get the host parent to feed it, allowing the adult cuckoo to conserve resources while its young consumes resources meant for others.
The cuckoo's nesting behavior has been known to humans since antiquity. Aristotle and Pliny both described the parasitic behavior of the cuckoo. The idea of the "cuckoo in the nest" was used as an analogy for human behavior at least by the Middle Ages. The Old French term cucuault refers to a husband whose wife has been having an affair and who, by implication, is raising children who may not be his. The name derives from the Old French cucu or cuckoo, and is the root of the English world "cuckold."
Contemporary uses of the phrase "cuckoo in the nest" vary widely. For instance, one might say, "We were surprised when the family dog adopted a kitten and raised it as her own, like a cuckoo in the nest." Other uses for the phrase might highlight its implications of sexual impropriety or theft of resources.
The expression "cuckoo in the nest" has a range of meanings. It can mean any person or thing found where it doesn't belong, and is also used to mean any problem that grows quickly, consuming resources needed for other purposes. In addition, the term is sometimes used to refer to an illegitimate child. "Cuckoo in the Nest" or "A Cuckoo in the Nest" appears in the title of a 1933 film, a 1970 television program and a 2008 novel, among other works.
The term "cuckoo in the nest" derives from the nesting habits of some species of cuckoo. Over 50 species of European cuckoo and 3 species of New World cuckoo engage in a nesting behavior called brood parasitism. Instead of raising their own young, brood parasites lay their eggs in the nests of other species of bird.
Parasitic cuckoos are host-specific, meaning that each species of cuckoo lays its eggs in the nest of only one other species of bird. Cuckoo eggs have evolved to resemble the eggs of these species, making them difficult to tell apart. When a cuckoo egg hatches, the host bird raises the young cuckoo as one of its own: there is literally a cuckoo in the nest. Cuckoo eggs have a short incubation period and cuckoo young mature quickly, so the young cuckoo has an advantage over the host species young. It usually destroys their eggs or evicts them from the nest, then imitates their cries to get the host parent to feed it, allowing the adult cuckoo to conserve resources while its young consumes resources meant for others.
The cuckoo's nesting behavior has been known to humans since antiquity. Aristotle and Pliny both described the parasitic behavior of the cuckoo. The idea of the "cuckoo in the nest" was used as an analogy for human behavior at least by the Middle Ages. The Old French term cucuault refers to a husband whose wife has been having an affair and who, by implication, is raising children who may not be his. The name derives from the Old French cucu or cuckoo, and is the root of the English world "cuckold."
Contemporary uses of the phrase "cuckoo in the nest" vary widely. For instance, one might say, "We were surprised when the family dog adopted a kitten and raised it as her own, like a cuckoo in the nest." Other uses for the phrase might highlight its implications of sexual impropriety or theft of resources.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Total Refusal - Islam Out of Quebec
French-Canadians: an endangered species.
Islam is arriving in remote areas of Quebec -- the heartland of the French-Canadian Founding People.
The incursion of Islam and other strangeness into the French-Canadian heart of Quebec is the equivalent of cutting down the equatorial rainforest to graze cows. This loss of our natural habitat will destroy the core of our inherent territories in our French-Canadian homeland.
Quebec must mount a total refusal without delay. Civil disobedience is essential. A campaign of information to French Canadians in those areas is necessary.
For example, one-page brochures must be sent door-to-door by post for a few cents apiece with a list of videos on what has happened to Europe -- the no-go zones, the murders, the rapes, the Islamic terrorism, the disappearance of the founders of Europe from their own soil.
Urge local (small) banks, landlords and real estate agents to flatly refuse to rent or to sell anything to the foreigners. Put up signs in every village and town: "NO-COME ZONE". "WE REFUSE OUR OWN GENOCIDE AT THE HANDS OF THE MARXISTS".
Canada is a Confederation; the legal and constitutional purpose of federalism in Canada is to protect and preserve the peoples who founded Canada under our own Legislatures. The water line has been reached. No more invasion! No more globalization! And we must reverse the existing globalization.
MASSIVE IMMIGRATION IS A CONSTITUTIONAL OVERTHROW. It is undemocratic and illegal. It violates SELF-GOVERNMENT of the founders of Canada, as established by the federal Constitution of Canada. It deprives CANADIANS of SELF-rule, placing us under the foreign rule of the communist-globalist UNITED NATIONS.
We do not "preserve" our heritage by DILUTING it with a deluge of foreigners.
If they tell us we are "racists", we answer them, "NO, YOU are the racists."
If they say, "We are minorities, protect us, accommodate us!" we tell them, "No, you are majorities from elsewhere, Go home!" Our constitution protects us, Our constitution accommodates us. We have a right to exist!
If we want to see foreign cultures, we'll practise TOURISM!
We have a constitutional alliance to protect us. It comes from 1867. That alliance does not include Asians, Nigerians, Mexicans or Islam. Those people have their own constitutions elsewhere. We have OURS, here!
Mass immigration deprives the French-Canadians of our unique Legislature, which our ancestors created for us in 1867.
We understand that the native peoples need their protected territories to survive. Founding peoples of Canada also need their protected federal territories to survive.
The Founders of Canada must protect each other. We must assert the 1867 Constitution, designed by our forefathers to protect us.
e
Le nombre d'immigrants de confession musulmane qui s'installent dans la région de QUÉBEC ne cesse de croître. De plus, Mme Boulmerka et son équipe travaillent depuis plusieurs années pour obtenir des subventions du gouvernement québécois afin de rendre l'école plus accessible aux familles qui n'ont pas les moyens de débourser les quelque 3200$ annuels - incluant les remboursements des frais de garde - que coûte l'inscription d'un enfant...
Translation: The number of immigrants of the Muslim faith who settle in the area of QUEBEC is growing constantly. Moreover, Mrs. Boulmerka and her team have worked for several years to obtain subsidies from the Québéc government to make the school more accessible to families who cannot afford the fees of approximately $3,200 a year, which is the cost of enroling one child, including reimbursement of daycare expenses...
Islam is arriving in remote areas of Quebec -- the heartland of the French-Canadian Founding People.
The incursion of Islam and other strangeness into the French-Canadian heart of Quebec is the equivalent of cutting down the equatorial rainforest to graze cows. This loss of our natural habitat will destroy the core of our inherent territories in our French-Canadian homeland.
Quebec must mount a total refusal without delay. Civil disobedience is essential. A campaign of information to French Canadians in those areas is necessary.
For example, one-page brochures must be sent door-to-door by post for a few cents apiece with a list of videos on what has happened to Europe -- the no-go zones, the murders, the rapes, the Islamic terrorism, the disappearance of the founders of Europe from their own soil.
Urge local (small) banks, landlords and real estate agents to flatly refuse to rent or to sell anything to the foreigners. Put up signs in every village and town: "NO-COME ZONE". "WE REFUSE OUR OWN GENOCIDE AT THE HANDS OF THE MARXISTS".
Canada is a Confederation; the legal and constitutional purpose of federalism in Canada is to protect and preserve the peoples who founded Canada under our own Legislatures. The water line has been reached. No more invasion! No more globalization! And we must reverse the existing globalization.
MASSIVE IMMIGRATION IS A CONSTITUTIONAL OVERTHROW. It is undemocratic and illegal. It violates SELF-GOVERNMENT of the founders of Canada, as established by the federal Constitution of Canada. It deprives CANADIANS of SELF-rule, placing us under the foreign rule of the communist-globalist UNITED NATIONS.
We do not "preserve" our heritage by DILUTING it with a deluge of foreigners.
If they tell us we are "racists", we answer them, "NO, YOU are the racists."
If they say, "We are minorities, protect us, accommodate us!" we tell them, "No, you are majorities from elsewhere, Go home!" Our constitution protects us, Our constitution accommodates us. We have a right to exist!
If we want to see foreign cultures, we'll practise TOURISM!
We have a constitutional alliance to protect us. It comes from 1867. That alliance does not include Asians, Nigerians, Mexicans or Islam. Those people have their own constitutions elsewhere. We have OURS, here!
Mass immigration deprives the French-Canadians of our unique Legislature, which our ancestors created for us in 1867.
We understand that the native peoples need their protected territories to survive. Founding peoples of Canada also need their protected federal territories to survive.
The Founders of Canada must protect each other. We must assert the 1867 Constitution, designed by our forefathers to protect us.
e
Sunday, April 22, 2012
A Lament for British North America
By Robert Martin*
Introduction
When, on 26 October 1992, the Canadian people rejected the package of constitutional reforms known as the Charlottetown Accord, they may have created a historical watershed. They may have abandoned a three decade long national fascination with constitutional reform. [1]
This was a most welcome development. It shifted public attention away from the grand abstractions of constitutional law to the mundane, but concrete, realities of the lives of Canadians. Such a shift was desperately needed. One can only wish, idly, that it had happened sooner, for considerable damage had already been done.
While the interminable process of constitutional reform distorted Canada's politics and public discourse, the most significant legal changes spawned by it were the result of the enactment of the Canada Act 1982. In particular, the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms transformed our law, our politics, and our culture.[2]
I want to look at an almost unnoticed bit of constitutional reform. This was the renaming of our basic constitutional document, the British North America Act of 1867.1 will set out in detail the change which was made and describe the near universal lack of interest it elicited. My central purpose is to argue that, despite the vast attention which has been lavished on it, our constitution no longer fulfils an essential - perhaps the most essential - function of a constitution. It no longer sets out a unifying national idea. Our constitution gives scant intellectual or emotional direction in the maintenance of a peculiarly Canadian society.
The largest portion of the essay will be devoted to a discussion of why any of this does or should matter. I will attempt to argue that the idea of British North America once provided coherence for the Canadian state. My conclusion will not be that we should return to British North America, but that we are a country without a recognized and accepted national idea and with little prospect of creating a fresh one.
2. The Canada Act 1982
The Canadian constitution [3] is not a popular, not a people's, constitution. It is, in its language and its structure, a lawyers' constitution. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the perversely complicated package of amendments known formally as the Canada Act 1982. This brief statute, enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, has a Schedule "A" attached to it the Canada Act 1982 in French. Then it has a Schedule "B" the Constitution Act, 1982. In fact, there are two Schedules "B". One is the Constitution Act, 1982 in English; the other the same statute in French.
There is, in turn, a Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982. The function of this Schedule is to give new names to a series of statutes. The first of these is the original British North America Act, 1867. It is given the title Constitution Act, 1867. Now each amendment to the British North America Act had been called a British North America Act, with the year of its passage forming part of its title. Thus, an amending statute passed in 1907 was called the British North America Act, 1907. These amending statutes are also retitled. Each is now to be called Constitution Act followed by the year of its enactment.[4] The amending statute already noted is to be styled the Constitution Act, 1907.
As of 17 April 1982, the day the Canada Act 1982 took effect, Canada ceased to be British North America.
Where did the idea of making this change come from? I have not been able to discover an answer to this question. I turned initially to two persons who had been important in constitutional reform.
Barry L. Strayer, now a judge of the Federal Court of Canada, is generally regarded as having played the leading role in drafting the Canada Act 1982 and its appendices. He could not recall who originated the idea nor did he remember any discussion of it. [5]
We do know that the renaming of the British North America Act made its first official appearance in the Victoria Charter of 1971, [6] a comprehensive proposal by the Government of Canada for constitutional reform. Mark MacGuigan is also a judge of the Federal Court of Canada. In 1972, as a Member of Parliament, he co-chaired the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada. [7]
The Victoria Charter loomed large in the deliberations of the Committee. Mr. Justice MacGuigan could not recall any discussion of the question of abandoning the phrase British North America.[8] There is no specific reference to the issue in the final report of the Committee.
I then turned to published sources. Once upon a time, Canadian legal literature was scanty and superficial. It is no longer scanty. There is now a particularly vast literature about the constitution and, even more particularly, about the Canada Act 1982. This literature addresses the Act's genesis, its adoption, its content and its implications. Now I cannot claim to have read all this literature, but I have read a lot of it, certainly as much as any rational human being could be expected to.
I have come across only one reference to the renaming of the British North America Act. In the Second Edition of his treatise, Constitutional Law of Canada, published in 1985, Peter W. Hogg observed of the new name, "This change seems to me to smack of rewriting history ...". [9] Apart from this incisive observation, none of the many commentators on our process of constitutional reform, so far as I can discover, has directly addressed the purpose or significance of our jettisoning of British North America. [10]
So why was the change made? My surmise is that it was an attempt to make the constitution appear "more Canadian". [11] The parliamentary committee of 1972 did allude to this general point. It opined in its report:
The measure of the inadequacy of the British North America Act is that it does not serve Canadians fully as either a mirror of ourselves or as an inspirational ideal. [12]
The implicit suggestion is that the very phrase "British North America" had become a relic. This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982 which actually effected the change is given the title "Modernization of the Constitution". Presumably no self- respecting "modern" constitution would dare call itself the British North America Act.
Was this the case? To answer this question we must do two things. We must attempt, first, to discover the meaning of British North America. Then we must assess whether this was an idea which could claim by 1982 to exert any force in Canada.
3. The Meaning of British North America
The sense of being British North America once gave coherence to the Canadian state. It gave Canadians an understanding of why Canada existed.
What was British North America? What was the content of the idea?
Like all significant ideas, this one was made up of contradictory and inconsistent elements.
In part, British North America was a narrow expression of our colonial, settler origins. [13] The phrase bespoke the outpost of empire, "Ready, Aye, Ready" sense of being a bit of the Mother Country which simply happened to be located across the Atlantic Ocean. This was a romantic, defensive understanding of the meaning of British North America. It was alienating to non-British Canadians and it limited our ability to develop a sense of ourselves as an autonomous state. If this had been all that British North America meant, its jettisoning would, by 1982, have been long overdue.
But British North America also expressed another more positive and more inclusive notion of being Canadian. It was not so much a statement of our "Britishness" as of our uniqueness. This had primarily to do with the shared understanding that we stood for a different way of doing things in North America. We were not, emphatically not, like our neighbours. And we knew why. Our society was not based on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; we were not founded on the celebration of individual freedom. We had chosen, rather, "peace, order and good government". The individual was to be subordinated to the collective. Life was not simply to be about the acquisition of wealth by individuals. We would also have obligations towards each other.
These notions about the distinctiveness of British North America remained central throughout much of our history. George Grant, appropriately enough, summed this up in an introduction which he wrote for the 1970 edition of Lament for a Nation.
Our hope lay in the belief that on the northern half of this continent we could build a community which had a stronger sense of the common good and of public order than was possible under the individualism of the American capitalist dream.[14]
The sense of having avoided the crass individualism of American life was also important to the way British North America understood itself: Enoch Padolsky noted how Frederick Philip Grove, in an influential essay written in 1929, described the United States as:
...dominated by a god called "Standard of Living", ruled by a law "which bows before economic obesity", with goals of "sensual enjoyment and the so-called conquest of nature", and dominated by a "new... plutocracy for the enslavement of the mind and the spirit. [15]
The idea that British North America was a "community with a character and experience of its own " [16] had acquired form and some vigour by the middle of the 19th century. Canadians understood that while they were part of North America, they were, in important ways, different from Americans. They took pride in having avoided the excesses, the republican licentiousness, which they saw as characterising the society of the United States. Chief amongst those excesses was slavery. British North America was, in its own eyes, a better and freer society.
It was understood that British North America was not "British" in a narrow ethnic sense, but that it had two constituent elements - English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada. The two elements had voluntarily come together in a single state which expressed both their duality and their common determination not to be American. English-speaking Canadians were not necessarily English or British; they simply spoke English.
Our democracy was also rooted in the notion of British North America. Our sense was not the American one which saw democracy as the reconciliation of an infinite variety of hostile and competing interests. In the Canadian conception the source of democratic government was the Crown. The Crown in British North America was to function as the instrument of the people which ensured the working of their democratic institutions. The Crown was also the guarantor of the French language and the distinctive culture of Onebec. Democracy was for us an organic expression of our unity. [17]
The idea of British North America self-evidently underlay the impetus towards Confederation. [18] It was a motivating factor in our expansion to the West. [19] And it would seem that by the end of the First World War the idea was firmly fixed in the Canadian psyche. Grant expressed this with his accustomed eloquence.
Growing up in Ontario the generation of the 192Os took it for granted that they belonged to a nation. The character of the country was self-evident. To say it was British was not to deny it was North American. To be a Canadian was to be a unique species of North American. [20]
Yet the extraordinary fact is that, insofar as I can determine, not one public voice was raised in opposition to the end of British North America.
Two people one might have expected to speak out were Eugene Forsey and Frank Scott. A long- time associate of his told me that Forsey was privately unhappy about the change, but did not say anything because he concluded it would be futile to make a fuss. [21] Forsey was the author of an excellent primer on Canadian government and politics, How Canadians Govern Themselves. [22] In the first edition, published in 1979, he discussed the British North America Act and set out its basic structure. [23] For the 1982 second edition he referred to "... the British North America Act, 1867 (now renamed the Constitution Act, 1867)" [24], but made no comment on the change. As for Frank Scott, he did for a time act as an advisor to Pierre Trudeau during the process of constitutional change which led to the Canada Act 1982. A recent and full biography of Scott discusses this role, but makes no reference to Scott having had any reservations about abandoning British North America. [25]
4. The Decline of British North America
The simple and incontrovertible fact is that by 1982 British North America was an idea which no longer moved Canadians, indeed it seems it was an idea which was barely intelligible to Canadians.
It is very difficult to document the gradual, but inexorable, demise of an idea. There are no mileposts to point to. One day Canada was British North America and the next it was not.
But some enlightenment can be gleaned by looking at the decline of another bit of terminology which was very much tied up with British North America. This is the word "Dominion".
The word is found, appropriately enough, in the original British North America Act. The Preamble speaks of "One Dominion under the Crown", while section 3 provides for the creation of "One Dominion under the Name of Canada". Strictly speaking, the official name of the new country was, simply, "Canada", but usage sanctioned "Dominion of Canada". [26]
The word "Dominion" appeared in the titles of many national institutions. The national government was referred to as the "Dominion government", especially in order to distinguish it from provincial governments. And Canada's national day was called "Dominion Day".
Slowly the term began to disappear. In the 1930s the government of Canada began to use "Canada" instead of "Dominion of Canada". "Dominion" was removed from the names of national institutions and gradually expunged from the statute book. [27] Both writers on constitutional law and our judges have long since abandoned "Dominion" and now use the phrase "federal government". [28] And in 1982 "Dominion Day" was renamed "Canada Day" . [29]
I presume that "Dominion" was consigned to the same fate as "British North America" for the same reason - it was thought to connote a colonial, less than fully independent status. Particularly in the case of "Dominion" this seems odd, for there was a time when the phrase "Dominion status" was a constitutional terms of art used to signify an independent, self-governing Commonwealth state. This usage, in a formal sense, dates back to the Statute of Westminster of 1931.
The decline in the fortunes of "British North America" went hand in hand with the waning in the minds of Canadians of the sense of their country's uniqueness. In a recent article William Christian addressed the question why George Grant wrote Lament For a Nation when he did. Christian's answer was straightforward. It was that Grant had come to "... see clearly that the dream of sustaining in Canada any sort of alternative to American civilization was irrevocably extinguished". [30] The blame, Grant saw clearly, lay with Canadians themselves and their "having come to accept the attractiveness of modernity". [31] Or, as, in slightly different fashion, another commentator on Grant put it:
Canada has ceased to be a nation, not because its political existence has ended, but because its distinctive intention has ceased to be important. [32]
For Grant the end of the Canadian dream came in 1963 when a Canadian government allowed the United States to place nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. Others say the dream died with the Ogdensburg Agreement of 1940 and Canada's acceptance of continental defence under U.S. leadership. [33] The point, however, is not to quibble over the precise date at which one could state with certainty that both the reality and the hope of an independent Canada had ended, but simply to note the existence of an ongoing and seemingly unstoppable process.
Since, by 1982, Canadians no longer understood the meaning of British North America, it probably made some sense to abolish it and, at the same time, bring our constitution into closer conformity with that of the U.S. [34]
The end of British North America was also, as Peter Hogg seems to have been the only commentator to notice, [35] a milestone in the abolition, or rewriting, of our history. This has had profound effects in including Canadians to abandon the sense of their own uniqueness. The preferred style in universities and secondary schools is either to deny that Canada has a history or to persuade students that such history as we might have is something to be ashamed of, that our past is fundamentally flawed. [36] This perspective is starkly set out in a document called Anti-racism and Ethnocultural Equity in School Boards: Guidelines for Policy Development and Implementation issued by the Ontario Ministry of Education in 1993.
Much of the traditional curriculum focuses on the values, experiences, achievements and perspectives of white-European members of Canadian society and excludes or distorts those of other groups in Canada and throughout the world. [37]
The answer to this is obvious. School boards are required to "develop or modify curriculum to reflect a culturally and racially diverse society". [38] They are, in effect, directed actively to rewrite our past.
5. Does It Make Any Difference?
In order to answer this question, we must address an even more fundamental question. Why do states exist?
The simple answer, looking at many contemporary states, is that state boundaries are an expression of ethnic or linguistic or cultural bound-aries. France has the shape it does because it encompasses human beings who view themselves as French. Of course, not every person living with-in the boundaries of France regards himself or herself as French, nor does every such person live in France. But the fundamental raison d'etre of the French state is that it is the home of the French people.
But Canada, obviously, is neither ethnically nor linguistically nor culturally homogeneous. How do such states continue to exist?
States which are not ethnically homogeneous or which contain within their boundaries a number of discrete ethnic groups face profound difficulties. The disintegration of Yugoslavia and the apparently intractable ethnic warfare in Sri Lanka are but two examples amongst dozens which can be seen today in every part of the globe.
How then are multi-ethnic states to survive and even prosper? The answer is not easy to find, since there are in fact few examples of multi-ethnic states which have been successful over the long term.
An obvious possibility is for one ethnic group to dominate and oppress all the others. This is not a prescription for long-term stability, as can be seen in the recent history of the former U.S.S.R. and the Republic of South Africa. Another possibility is a series of alliances amongst the ostensible leaders of the various ethnic groups. In order to work, this approach generally demands the exclusion of the mass of the people from active participation in politics.
The question with which I began this section must be rephrased once again. How can a democratic, multiethnic state be organised?
It is possible that the only such state which has succeeded is the United States of America. What is its secret?
Obviously, generally high levels of economic development and prosperity have played their part. Nonetheless, I would argue that the success of the U.S.A. as a multi-ethnic democracy is very much a
function of the power of the ideological notion which has lain at the heart of its constitution, its politics and its culture. That notion is individual freedom.
Individual freedom and the ongoing commitment to it of generations of Americans have created the ideological cement which has allowed the U.S.A. to continue as a democratic, multiethnic state. I make no argument either for or against individual freedom as an idea, nor do I express any opinion as to its goodness or essential meaning. My point is simply that the ideological raison d'etre for the U.S.A. has been and continues to be individual freedom.
Why, then, is there a Canadian state? Why does Canada exist? Why should it continue?
Canada is not ethnically homogeneous. There is no single Canadian language. The ethnic justification for the existence of a Canadian state is not available. Is there an idea which gives a foundation and a direction to the Canadian state?
The idea of British North America once provided a purpose and a justification for the Canadian state. That idea has now disappeared. A fresh idea which could take its place has not appeared. And with no such unifying idea it is hard to imagine a future for the Canadian state, or at least for a multi- ethnic, democratic Canadian state.
Eugene Forsey clearly understood both the power and the importance of the idea which gave coherence to the Canadian state. Referring to the Crown, he said:
Without it, there can be no Canada, at best, just a blurred, faint, unmeaning carbon copy of some other country; a thing without character and without honour. [39]
But, it might be objected, other ideas have come along. What about "multiculturalism"? Or, what about the idea of individual rights as embodied in the Charter?
It is difficult to take multiculturalism seriously as an idea. Multiculturalism was invented a quarter of a century ago as an expedient by a federal Liberal Party desperate to win votes in Toronto.
As an idea to inform and unify a state it is laughably inadequate. Multiculturalism announces that Canada, or at least the formally English-speaking parts of it, has no culture. This is not much of an ideology.
Multiculturalism does little more than affirm our commitment to moral and intellectual relativism. That is, it affirms that we stand for precisely nothing. This was made evident in the Preamble to the failed Charlottetown Accord, the so-called "Canada Clause". [40] It is, of course, interesting that the would-be constitution-makers saw a need for the statement of a national idea, but the result was so flaccid as to be utterly worthless for the purpose. The Canada Clause would have told Canadians and the world that we are firmly on the side of goodness and are swell people. The Canada Clause was precisely what one would expect in the constitution of the nation which is the world leader in synchronised swimming.
Many people have argued that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, it will be recalled, became part of our Constitution at the same time as we ceased to be British North America, has supplied us with a new idea of what we stand for as a state. Now, to a considerable extent, at least outside Quebec, this is true. But that is the problem.
The Charter is, culturally, historically, and ideologically, an American document. It exalts individual freedom and its protection through legally enforceable rights. The Charter's enthusiastic acceptance by Canadians bespeaks the degree to which we can now understand our-selves only through American ideas. It symbolises our loss of any uniquely Canadian sense of ourselves. To the extent that the Charter does provide a unifying national idea, it is an idea that trumpets the abandonment of our autonomy and our uniqueness.
There is no longer a Canadian idea which can give coherence to the Canadian state. There is, then, no obvious basis upon which it may survive as a multi-ethnic democracy.
This assertion will probably be regarded as contentious in what is now more or less officially referred to, not as English-speaking Canada, but as "the rest of Canada", but it would be seen as self- evidently true by most people in Quebec. A substantial majority of Quebecois now see no raison d'etre for the current Canadian state. No amount of constitutional tinkering will change this.
The estrangement lies much deeper. British North America was, I have suggested, the union of two elements - English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada. But one element, English-speaking Canada, has largely disappeared. The reaction of the French-speaking element is to argue that there is simply nothing left to be united with, that with one partner dead there can no longer be a union.
Canada is not merely in a deep economic crisis. We are in an equally serious intellectual crisis. We are without a sense of why we exist. This is overwhelmingly apparent in the ease with which we accepted the integration of our economy with that of the U.S.A. and the silence with which the ongoing destruction of our cultural and political institutions is greeted.
6. Conclusion
I want to conclude where I began, with the Charlottetown Accord of 1992. That document manifests the two central themes of this essay -a people consciously abolishing their own history and, as a result, being left with a constitution which provides them scant intellectual or emotional direction.
The period from mid-1990, when the Meech Lake Accord failed to be formally implemented, to the autumn of 1992, when voters rejected the Charlottetown Accord, was one of national obsession with constitutional reform. There were Parliamentary committees and legislative committees in most provinces. There were citizens' forums and a series of national conferences. There were task forces and study groups. There were articles and reports and incessant lectures on television and radio.
Throughout the process we appeared to have convinced ourselves that making a constitution was the same as going to the supermarket. We seemed to believe that nothing more was involved than choosing from an unlimited range of proffered possibilities. We acted like bedazzled consumers, filling our constitutional cart with an incoherent jumble of questionable products.
The result, a result a majority of Canadians had the good sense to reject, would have been a constitution having no connection, no resonance whatsoever, with our history, our traditions and our culture. Had the Charlottetown Accord been accepted we would have taken the final step in a process in which the elimination of British North America was a significant watershed.
It would be foolish to suggest that we return to British North America. And I would not wish for an instant to recommend new attempts at constitutional reform. It is enough to draw attention to what we have lost.
*I wish to thank Jack Granatstein, Robert Hawkins, George Kerr and Rande Kostal for their comments on earlier draft. 1. The process can be said to have begun with a meeting of Attorneys-General held in Ottawa on 6 and 7 October 1960. See Anne F. Bayefsky, Canada's Constitution Act, 1982 and Amendments: A Documentary History. Toronto, 1989, vol. 1, p.1. 2. The literature on the Charter is voluminous and, by and large, credulous and uncritical. The worst book, in my opinion, is Ian Greene, The Charter of Rights, Toronto, 1989. The only ones worth reading are Michael Mandel, The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada, Toronto, 1989 and Rainer Knopff and F.L. Morton, Charter Politics, Scarborough, 1992. For my own views, see "The Charter and the Crisis in Canada" in David F. Smith, Peter MacKinnon and John C. Courtney, After Meech Lake: Lessons For the Future, Saskatoon, 1991, p.121.
3. For a discussion of what is meant by this phrase, see Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 3rd ed., Scarborough, 1992, pp.3-26.
4. This statement is not absolutely correct. A few of the statutes which: had amended the British North America Act, 1867 were repealed and the British North America Act, 1949 was renamed the Newfoundland Act.
5. Telephone conversation with Mr. Justice Strayer, 29 March 1993.
6. For the text, see Bayefsky, op. cit., pp.214-222.
7. The text of the Committee's Report is in ibid., pp.224-311.
8. Telephone conversation with Mr. Justice MacGuigan, 19 April 1993.
9. Scarborough, 1985, p.5. This observation has survived into the Third Edition of the book. See Constitutional Law of Canada, op. Cit., 1992, p.8.
10. I must confess that, at the time, I did not grasp the significance of what was being done. Indeed, I described the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982 as "housekeeping provisions". See "Introduction", (1984) 2 Socialist Studies, p.4 at 6.
11. Mr. Justice Strayer used this phrase. See notes 5.
12. Bayefsky, op. cit., p. 230.
13. For a forceful elaboration of this point of view, see John Conway, "Politics, Culture and the Writing of Constitutions" in Harvey L. Dyck and H. Peter Crosby, eds., Empire and Nations: Essays in Honour of Frederic H. Soward, Toronto, 1969, p.3.
14. Ottawa, 1970, p. x. See the interesting discussion in H.D. Forbes, "The Political Thought of George Grant", (1991)26 Journal of Canadian Studies, no. 3, p.46.
15. "Grove's 'Nationhood' and the European Immigrant" in Ibid., (1987) 22, no.1, p.32 at 41.
16. This phrase as well as the ideas in this paragraph come froni Allan Smith, "Old Ontario and the Emergence of a National Frame of Mind" in F. H. Armstrong, H. A. Stevenson mid J. D. Wilson, eds., Aspects of Nineteenth Century Ontario: Essays Presented to James J. Talman, Toronto, 1974, p. 194.
17. My understanding of British North America is, I confess, profoundly Tory. That is hardly surprising since British North America is, itself, a uniquely Tory idea. My understanding is drawn from the writings of George Grant, Eugene Forsey and Frank Scott and much influenced by Charles Taylor. The unique role of the Crown is discussed in Eugene Forsey, Freedom and Order, Toronto, 1974, pp.21-72. For a different perspective on Canadian Toryism, see Peter J. Smith, "The Ideological Origins of Canadian Confederation", (1987) 20 Canadian Journal of Political Science, no. 1 p. 3, and "Civic Humanism vs. Liberalism Fitting the Loyalists in", (1991) 26 journal of Canadian Studies, , no. 2, p. 25.
18. John A. Macdonald's speech of 6 February 1865 to the legislature of the Province of Canada in which lie urged adoption of the proposals for Confederation is a classic text for understanding the idea of British North America. He referred, in several places, to "the best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America". He spoke of "people possessed of skill, education and experience in the ways of the New World" and "ardent attachment for this, our common country". He warned of "the defects which time and events hare shown to exist in the American Constitution" and urged his compatriots to choose instead "British laws, British connection, and British freedom" as well as ensuring that "the rights of minorities are safeguarded". Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, Quebec, 1865, pp. 25-45.
19. See Doug Owram, Promise of Eden: The Canadian Expansionist Movement and the Idea of the West, 1856-1900, Toronto, 1980.
20. Lament for a Nation, Toronto, 1965, p.3.
21. Telephone conversation with Graham Eglington, 20 May 1993.
22. 1st. ed., Ottawa, 1979; 2nd. ed., Ottawa, 1982.
23. Ibid.,lst.ed.,pp.10-72.
24. Ibid., 2nd. ed., p.9.
25. Sandra Djwa, The Politics of the Imagination: A Life of F.R. Scott, Toronto, 1987, pp. 429-437. Scott believed that the R.N.A. Act implied, by its nature, a degree of subordination between Canada and the U.K. and that this should be remedied by what he called "repatriation". He did warn, however, against "repatriation" "at any price". See Frank R. Scott, Essays on the Constitution: Aspects of Canadian Law and Politics, Toronto, 1977, p.402.
26. Although the phrase does appear it, legislation. See, for example, sections 3 and 5 of the British North America Act, 1871.
27. As far as I can tell, the only statute which still uses the word is the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, R. S. C. 1985, c. C-28. Despite its title, the Act is indexed under "C" in the current revision of the statutes.
28. See the interesting discussion in Hogg, op. cit., 1992, 1,,'. 104-105. Early editions of Bora Laskin's Canadian Constitutional Law used "Dominion" without any evident shame or embarrassment. See, for example, 2nd ed., Toronto, 1960,pp. 30-37. Scott was not enthusiastic about either the term or the status. See Essays on the Constitution, op. cit., p.157.
29. See Holidays Act, R. S. C. 1985, c. H-5, 5.2. There was considerable controversy surrounding the passage of the amendment to the Holidays Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. H-7, which effected the change. In the first place this was a private member's bill, one of the very few ever to find its way into law. In the second place, it appears there were only 13 Members present in the House of Commons when the motion to read the Bill for a third time was adopted. The quorum in the House of Commons is 20. (Constitution Act, 1867, s.48). Further, only minutes were devoted to consideration of the Bill by the House of Commons. And, finally, there was a lengthy and acrimonious debate about the Bill in the Senate, a debate in which some Senators tried, without success, to discover why a private member's bill was being pushed through Parliament with such haste, particularly when an earlier government bill to the same effect had been tabled. In, the Senate, at least, there was a full debate over the desirability of making the change. A Senator who favoured "Canada Day" observed, "... history is not a stagnant pool". (Canada, Debates of the Senate, First Session, Thirty-Second Parliament, vol. IV, 22 July 1982, p.4668.) A different view of history was advanced by a Senator who wished to retain "Dominion Day", "I am saddened that it seems so easy for people to cast aside, and to allow others to cast aside, our glorious history". (Ibid., 27 July 1982, p. 4685.).
30. "George Grant's Lament", (1993) 100 Queen's Quarterly, no. 1, 199 at p.206.
31. lbid.,p.210.
32. H.D. Forbes, op. cit., p.50.
33. See J. L. Granatstein, How Britain's Weakness Forced Canada into the Arms of the United States, Toronto, 1989.
34. Some commentators contrived not to understand that this was happening. See, for example, D. Smiley, "A Dangerous Deed: The Constitution Act, 1982" and R. Whitaker, "Democracy and the Canadian Constitution" in Keith Banting and Richard Simeon, eds., And No-one Cheered, Toronto, 1982. Others, however, did understand. See Ronald I. Cheffins and Patricia A. Johnson, The Revised Canadian Constitution: Politics As Law, Toronto, 1986, pp.145-156.
35. See above, p.43.
36.See my article, "How I Lost My Father - Twice", The Globe and Mail, 11 November 1991, page "A".
37. Toronto, 1993, p. 13.
38. Ibid.. p.14.
39. Freedom and Order, op. cit., p 49.
40. The Canada Clause would been added as part of a new section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The following would have become some of our "fundamental characteristics".
e. Canadians are committed to racial and ethnic equality in a society that includes citizens from many lands who have contributed and continue to contribute, to the building of a strong Canada that reflects its cultural and racial diversity;
f. Canadians are committed to a respect for individual and collective human rights and freedoms of all people;
Consensus Report on the Constitution: Final Text, Charlottetown, 28 August 1992, p.1.
First prize in the vacuity sweepstakes must go to the proposal put forward in 1992 by the government of Ontario. Its suggested "Canada Clause" would have advocated "democratic participation by all Canadians, whatever their race, gender, religion, culture, or physical or mental disability; and concern for the well-being of all Canadians" as well as "respect for the dignity of individuals, groups and communities". Legislative Assembly, Select Committee' on Ontario in Confederation, Final Report, Toronto, 1992, p.10.
*Robert Martin is professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
