Abortion, immigration debates test limits of dialogue in House - Macleans.ca

Abortion, immigration debates test limits of dialogue in House

OTTAWA – The right for MPs to say and discuss almost anything they want is one of the central privileges of Parliament, but a couple of divisive debates over the past week tested the thresholds of dialogue in the House of Commons.


OTTAWA – The right for MPs to say and discuss almost anything they want is one of the central privileges of Parliament, but a couple of divisive debates over the past week tested the thresholds of dialogue in the House of Commons.

In one case, two spokespeople from the Canadian Immigration Forum were barred from speaking at the Commons immigration committee Wednesday because content on their website was deemed offensive — including an interview with Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm.

In the other, the NDP criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper for allowing Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth to put forward Motion 312, a controversial proposal that sought to re-examine how Canadian law defines a human being.

The issue of restricting debate on abortion has come up before in other areas — on Canadian campuses, for example. The pro-choice Canadian Civil Liberties Association has spoken out against barring pro-life advertising and activities at universities as a violation of free speech.

Liberal MP John McKay, visibly agitated Friday as he left another contentious question period, said the atmosphere after the vote on the motion earlier in the week was that of a funeral. McKay was one of four Liberals who voted in favour of the motion, which went down to defeat by a margin of 203-91.

“It kind of chills you; you don’t really want to get into it and then you layer that over with the conflicts among colleagues, people with who you normally work,” said McKay.

“The parallel that I would draw is to the capital punishment debate. At least there, the parliamentarians had the guts to deal with the issue and I think wisely dealt with the issue, but not us. We walked.”

Madi Lussier, one of the two witnesses from the Canadian Immigration Forum not permitted to speak to the Commons committee, wiped away tears as she expressed her frustrations. The group’s website is mostly an aggregator of articles on different issues touching on immigration, but divided into provocative sections with names such as “Chinafication” and “Arabization.”

She has advocated a moratorium on immigration for 50 years, and warned that “European” values might be at risk of disappearing in Canada.

NDP MP Jinny Sims was the first to argue against the group appearing. She said there are certain lines that cannot be crossed when allowing groups to testify at committee hearings.

“Well, I think (the website) definitely reflects the views of a white supremacist,” Sims said.

“We live in a diverse country, and a very inclusive country, and for a parliamentary committee to give due deference to both perspectives at an immigration committee, I think would not do this Parliament very proud.”

Conservative MP Rick Dykstra, parliamentary secretary to the immigration minister, said that once the opposition began lumping his party in with the views of the witnesses, it became impossible to have a rational discussion about their testimony.

“Once you stir the dust up to the point you can’t see anymore, you’ve got to clear the room, and I think it was the right decision to make,” said Dykstra.

But Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba, says it’s disappointing that the committee did not allow the Canadian Immigration Forum to appear.

“Every point of view — however ugly and obnoxious most Canadians might find it — should be allowed to be aired in hearings before our parliamentarians,” said Schafer.

“I think it’s important, for example, that they understand the passionate racism that exists in some quarters in Canada and understand the reasons and justifications that such people give.”

Schafer sees the abortion debate in a different light — not as a free speech issue, but as a political one. Those who feel they shouldn’t speak out — or feel the wrath when they do, such as Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose — are simply experiencing the pressures of electoral politics.

David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said he agrees.

“The motion was actually made, it was debated, and it raised the issue and duly elected parliamentarians voted against re-opening the issue,” said Eby.

“It’s not like it never showed up or was banned from being discussed by elected officials.”

Filed under:

Abortion, immigration debates test limits of dialogue in House

  1. Nobody is saying that Africa needs diversity.

    Nobody is saying that Asia needs diversity.

    They are already 100% diverse.

    People are only telling white children in white countries that they need diversity.

    White Countries will be 100% diverse when there are no white people left.

    Diversity is a code-word for white genocide.

    • Hey did you ever see that movie Pleasantville? Its a good study in the theory and practice of white genocide. In the beginning, the town is all (black and) white, then slowly there are more and more “colored” people, and it starts to get more interesting and “vibrant.” At the end, all the people are “colored”. There aren’t any more of the scary, mean, and hateful (black and) white people left. It is 100% diverse.

      Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

      And I totally agree. Diversity is definitely a code word for white genocide.

    • The diversity of New York city is full of AIDS, single mothers, fatherless children, diseased homosexuals, drug addicts and other filth.

      Detroit looks worse than Tikrit, Iraq and Chicago is more violent than Fallujah.

      I wish we were more multicultural with Islam, at least they execute homosexuals and there is very little AIDS in Islam.

      Who knows?

      Sodom Hussein Obama has a “spread the other cheek” foreign policy and wants to turn the Boy Scouts into a dating club for NAMBLA.

  2. Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, white countries for everybody! It is genocide, but to the anti-whites who prevented these facts from being presented in parliament, genocide is only a crime until it happens to us whites. When it happens to white people, it is deserved because we are evil-minded, guilty, racist, bigoted, outmoded.

    If the anti-whites had some actual arguments for genocide other than to pretend that it isn’t happening, or failing that, that we deserve it, they would have responded instead of refusing to allow debate.

  3. Is it not just as undemocratic and unfair to fight against those who do NOT want a “diverse” society, as it is to fight against those who do? Did the Canadian people vote to bring in massive non-White immigration to make Canada more diverse, or did elites decide on this? Is Japan an evil place because it remains 99% Japanese, and does not allow non-Japanese immigration? Only White people are pressured to be race-neutral in order to facilitate their own genocide. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

    • Great point Richard. I’d say at least 50% of society dislikes it, although most lack the guts to tell the truth clearly and openly as you just did. Thanks for saying it.

      • The kicker is it’s genocide. Look up the UN definition of genocide.

        • They know it’s genocide. What they fear is people waking up and realizing that that their race (and only theirs) is being targeted for genocide.

  4. In my view, Harper allowed Motion 312 to go forward in the House, and he pre-determined the percentage of votes for it (53%) because he wanted to achieve two things – that most of his MPs supported their base, and that he, and others (47%) were willing to stick with pre-election promises appease the pro-choice people. The guy is a control freak. You can’t tell me he didn’t control this too.

  5. I think quite a few unimaginative and questionably literate people here need a reminder of the literal translation of genocide.

    Note: Not being able to select the skin colour of your neighbours does not qualify as “genocide” – that’s actually called just being stuck-up and spoiled; a group of people en masse must actually have their lives threatened, usually at gunpoint, on the basis of their ethnic origins in order to lay claim to victimization under the principle of genocide.

    Source: I volunteer for an organization that actively works to prevent global genocide. It’s rather important that we all be informed of what genocide actually entails.

    • UN Migration Chief admitted to a conspiracy to do exactly that to white people all over the world:

      But if the European example is much poorer in terms of the integration of workers into their society, in terms of their getting jobs, that is related to the fact that the United States or Australia and New Zealand are migrant societies and therefore accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others, which is precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.

      We know the British Labour Party has been following this advice:

      “The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

      He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

      As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.”

      -Tom Whitehead, The Telegraph 2009

      There was no outrage about this, because all Western governments are pursuing the same policy. You can tell by watching what they do.

      Why do call white people “stuck-up and spoiled” for wanting a future for white children, Torontochick?

      • I think it’s deeply indicative of psychological repression and obviously untreated damage that your identity is solely defined by your ethnic grouping – not only in the monolithic anonymity of the name you’ve chosen for yourself but also in the telling way that an implication is made that an individual unable to “vote in” their neighbours on criteria as superfluous as skin colour/phenotype is being shallow and stuck-up (goes without saying, it’s the same principle as housing tribunals, as elitist as it gets), and in my insinuation that to call such an inability a violation of some inalienable right is radical at best, your immediate interpretation is that of all white people having been insulted by this common sense assessment? I would ask if you realize that elitism is a term that can apply to any racial grouping or for that matter any one individual and remind you that “white people” are not a monolith but in fact a group of hundreds of millions of individuals, all of whom have different political leanings, languages, cultural affiliations, etc., but I know that you lack both the self-awareness and the normal sense of boundaries/individualism to recognize such facts. I will leave you to happily engage in your tribalism since it obviously gives your oddly lacking id some sense of purpose, and with this:

        1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

        Sorry, but once again, not liking the skin/eye colour of your neighbours does not formally qualify as genocide; once again, it’s elitism (read: snobbery) at best. If your neighbours come over with machetes at the behest of some large-scale operation, we’ll talk again.

        • What part of “deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” do you not understand?

        • I must say, being targeted for genocide does have a way of promoting ethnic solidarity. Only whites are ridiculed and pathologized for advocating for their own people.

          Might we know your ethnicity? I have my suspicions give your sneering tone and moral preening. I’d like to know if I’m right.

          • Of course you have suspicions! What kind of racist would you be if you didn’t ascribe personality traits to hundreds of millions of people based on their phenotype? Certainly not a consistent one!

            And I’m sorry but only whites are ridiculed and pathologized for being racist? When was the last time you heard someone saying, “That Jesse Jackson, he sure is of sound mind!” Nooooo! People make fun of ethnocentrists all the time! At least in the circles to which I belong and the websites which I frequent (these are mainstream and popular sites, not uninclusive and niche like those you no doubt enjoy).

          • I don’t know about Canada, but in the US so called “minorities” have all kinds of representatives that are taken very seriously and are part of mainstream discourse. There is a Congressional Black Caucus the sole purpose of which is to evaluate legislation for its effect on black people. Meanwhile, we whites are not allowed to articulate any group interest. Indeed, any political gathering whites talking about anything elicits cries of “racism.” If we oppose affirmative action (discrimination against our children), its “racist.” If we oppose exorbitant taxation to subsidize our own race replacements and their families, we’re “racist.”

            How do you think this is going to work out for white people, Torontochick? Well, I’ll tell you. The end result will be no more white children. Since you call me names and state that I have a mental illess for advocating for my own people, most of whom are too demoralized and ashamed to do so themselves, I can only assume that you have no use for white people.

            You say you want to avoid harm. How do you think it makes white children feel to be told that they are has beens, nothing special, “soon we’ll all be brown and there won’t be anymore racism” etc?

            That is why anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

          • In Canada they discourage that sort of thing. Actually, in Calgary there is or has been a “white pride” march (which of course many people protested), but the Black Panthers were banned from speaking here, which of course I support. Do you find that “double standard” objectionable? Didn’t think so;) Racism is harmful and hurtful and so racist groups should not be given a public platform.

            Having said that, nothing wrong with ethnic pride. St. Patty’s Day Parade, Afrofest, Taste of the Danforth, Annual Polish Festival, Fringe Festival, Nuit Blanche, Pride Parade, Chinatown Festival, these are just some of the many ways you can celebrate your heritage without being hateful or noninclusive in this great city of mine alone:)

            And if different kinds of people is not your thing, no problem! You’re welcome to move to St. Catherine’s or somewhere similar. The great thing about such a vast and liberal country like Canada is that you can opt in or out at will.

            From what I gather of your objections so far, you would like Canada to be more like the States, with various vocal ethnic special interest groups replacing national (or realistically, more commonly municipal) solidarity? (That last part was an obvious reference to the fact that much of Canada hates people from the GTA, so I would like to know where this “ethnic solidarity” you speak of is there. The movie “Let’s All Hate Toronto” included a man from out east calling our men “soft-handed office pimps.”)

            To say that I have “no use for white people” is an accusation I find laughable given my personal and family history. I simply have no use for racial exclusion or even racial identification, to be perfectly honest. I have a pretty vast network of friends and I’m known in my social group to be the matchmaker. What’s funny to me is that I personally am at least partially responsible for probably 2 or 3 white couples but I do not see them that way, they’re just people who I knew would get along. Of course any girl would like to see her female friends in a happy relationship and when a close female friend of mine who happens to be blonde and originally from small-town Ontario told me that she was single and looking to meet someone and confessed what her “preferences” were in terms of men, she got no judgment from me, I simply introduced her to the male friends I knew who I thought fit the bill who she might find attractive and whom she might hit it off with. I have nothing against anybody, I just genuinely do not – cannot – am not capable of understanding why it is so important to you that the people around you be the same colour as you because it means not a whit to me. People are people. Some are cool. Some suck. Simple as that.

          • You’re right I shouldn’t have said you “have no use for white people.” It wasn’t fair, but I will tell you that this is exactly the message our society sends to white children. Patrick Buchanan was sent to political Siberia for writing a book about white demographic decline on the grounds that it was “inappropriate for a national dialogue.” I understand your own Parliament did the same thing to one Madi Lussier, who wanted to give a report to that body concerning the threat that immigration poses to the European character of Canada. They said his point of view was “inappropriate.” Meanwhile, they celebrate the growth of ethnic populations. The New York Times could barely contain its glee when not to long ago it was reported that white babies are a minority in the US. What it makes it particularly hurtful is that we are told that “diversity is our strength” (a meme invented by the Aryan Defamation League which it curiously does not believe applies to Israel which it supports as a “Jewish State”) Apparently, “diversity” doesn’t include white people who want to resist oblivion in the countries their ancestors built. Non-whites are “diverse” but whites are dispensible.

          • As a Toronto resident, a city which has “Diversity is our strength” as its formally-adopted mantra, I have to point out again that diversity does in fact, include white people. But there is nothing diverse about identifying oneself as a colour. If the point of multiculturalism is to celebrate a multitude of cultures, then the residents of the city – and that pertains to people who happen to be white as well – are encouraged to celebrate their individual ethnic identities. That is why we have Greektown. That is why we have Little Malta. What you’re actually advocating is that white people abandon their cultural identities in favour of a monolithic identity that is just “white.” It may seem to be semantics, but it’s actually a significant point. Toronto doesn’t count demographics merely by race, but by ETHNIC GROUP – meaning that the Chinese are counted as a distinct group relative to the Japanese. That’s important, and you seem very flippant about it.

          • Oh yes the Aryan Defamation League is always quick to point out that they condemn the National Black Panther Party when they are called out for suppressing and demonizing white advocacy. The problem is that the NBPP is an explicitly genocidal, militant anti-white organization. They were recently involved in an attempt to intimidate white voters, but our august black Attorney General Eric “My people” Holder refused to prosecute. A heroic attorney named J. Christian Adams resigned from the Justice Department on the grounds that the Justice Department was hostile to white victims and that some had even said that it was “payback time” for whites.
            So much for liberal universalism and “human rights.” I ask you again how you think a disorganized, anti-ethnocentric white population will fare as a minority in a couple of decades?
            Try to find a white advocacy online that has not been designated a hate group by the $outhern Poverty Law Center. There aren’t any. That’s because white advocacy is ipso facto “hate” while non-white ethnic advocacy is only hate if it only calls for violence and terrorism against whites. Why would the Aryan Defamation League and the $PLC maintain these double standards unless they are trying to get rid of us? It is painfully obvious that we whites are being deliberately phased out like a defective model . Of course, I know you don’t like the phrase, but it is indeed very clear that these “anti-racist” organizations are anti-white.

          • It is not the fault of your self-proclaimed adversaries that you racists have PR problem. Maybe try NOT sounding radical, hateful and extreme everytime you’re given a platform (as you’ve demonstrated today) and then maybe your organizations won’t be blacklisted?

            But if you want to know how white people will fare as a minority in America, why wouldn’t you just look to countries that presently have a white minority in North America? You know there are several in the Caribbean alone, right? Again, I am not saying that’s a desirable or inevitable outcome, just pointing out how unnecessarily fatalistic you sound.

          • While it may be true that there wouldn’t be racism anymore if everyone was brown, there would still be division of some sort because that’s just how people are. Some of them really suck. Simple as that. There isn’t a whole lot of racial diversity in Congo but yet there is still genocide. Not a whole lot of racial diversity in northern Ireland either; yet, people kill each other over which version of Christianity is more accurate. I do not think forced miscegenation will cure society’s ills, nor do I think racial homogeneity makes for a perfect society, either. I think the happiest places are the places where people can generally do what they want as long as they’re not harming anyone else. In other words, they’re socially liberal.

        • As we speak, Norwegian families are being driven out of Oslo by an immigrant rape epidemic. In May 2011, it was reported on Norwegian television that every single rape in the last five years was committed by “non-Western” immigrants. Oslo has a rape rate six times higher than that of New York thanks to all that cultural enrichment.

          Now what was that you were saying about “skin color” and snobbery?

          The only rational response to this horrendous epidemic is to stop letting in Muslim immigrants, at least until the causes and solutions to this campaign of sexual terrorism against white women and girls can be sorted out.

          But not only has the Norwegian government failed to do that, they actually recently spat on their own people by appointing a Pakistani Muslim as “Minister of Culture.” They have made very clear what their intentions are for Norway.

          As Norwegian social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen explained it, “our most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again.”

          This is clearly genocide, but if you don’t think that is the right word, exactly what would you call it? Ethnic cleansing, ethnocide, conquest, colonialism, ethnic warfare?

          Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

          • Obviously as a woman, hearing of a widescale epidemic of rape is of grave concern and I would certainly hope that the Norwegian government is reexaming their policies and exacting law enforcement and social policies that will put an end to those horrendeous crimes. Again, as a humanitarian and egalitarian, my concern is harm reduction for the living. Obviously in that event, resources should be pooled to determine what the source of these crimes are and if it does in fact turn out to be that they are related to organized crime and gangs, then something needs to be done about that and of course I would suggest Norway takes a harder look at their immigration standards.

            I must say, I found the quote you provided to be quite bewildering – definitely indicative of a radical leftist. Do I believe that people should be able to move about as they please, so long as they are going to be peaceful, productive citizens contributing to the prosperity of a nation? Absolutely. This is also why I call for immigrants to full immerse themselves in the culture and language of the country they’ve emigrated to. It’s in the interest of harm reduction that they do so. There’s no doubt in my mind that people can live cooperatively and mutually beneficially. Would I say that a conscious effort should be made to displace people? Of course not. That is radical, to say the least. But if you were willing to be respectful of, for instance, Korean language and culture, were of working age, educated and well-financed, able-bodied and willing to contribute to their economy, I can see no logical reason why you should be denied the opportunity to live in Korea if you were so inclined to do so. A nation’s government should have the right to establish their citizenship standards, absolutely, but they should be legitimate criteria and hair, eye and skin colour does not strike me as legitimate criteria, sorry!

            Having said all of that, I have questioned family reunification class immigration on numerous occasions. If someone who meets all of the above criteria is granted access to a country, that is fantastic, but that doesn’t necessarily mean their parents, aunts and uncles meet those same standards and have to or even should come with them.

            I’m an outspoken anti-racist and I am neither anti-white nor anti-other ethnic grouping. Please try again. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Your “national slogan” needs some work; perhaps something that is not absurd?

          • You say that Eriksen is a “radical leftist” and that is true. He does not represent the mainstream, but that is how the mainstream has consistently moved ever further to the Left for generations now. The far right is demonized and stigmatized. Indeed, what is considered far right itself keeps moving to the Left. In Europe, “far right” means simply the belief that any illegal immigrants should be deported ever. Pretty soon, it will be considered “far right” to believe in any immigration restrictions at all. Open borders is the ultimate goal.

            Because the far right is excluded from debate, there is no counterweight to extremist white genocide advocates like Eriksen. International Marxism is genocidal by its very nature because it seeks to forge an international proletariat, which in itself requires the destruction of racial, religious, and cultural loyalties. You go along with this, yet you do not realize that you have basically swallowed most of the International Leftist agenda. You have no basis on which to oppose Eriksen other than to say he is “radical”. In other words, you basically agree with him, you just want to slow down.

          • Who the majority is ethnically speaking is neither here nor there, to me. I would oppose making a conscious effort to alter the ethnic demographics of a nation because it’s inherently fascist, but then, pronatalism is a sort of socially sanctioned fascism as well and that is the type you advocate for (presumably, as long as it targets white people only). Basically, my question is, what do people like you and people like Thomas Hylland Eriksen have against free choice? You spoke of people “merging” with horror and like that is something that should be prevented, but really, who really cares if they do? If they choose to “stick to their own” as you insist they are naturally inclined toward, then having the neighbours be a different ethnic background will do little to change that. It seems to me that extremists operate in the business of coercion and relentless control. If it were to be the case that white people in Canada were to become a minority eventually, honestly, that’s just fine by me, so long as Canada remains the industrious secular egalitarian liberal democracy that it proudly is today. If it occurs that white people in Canada are perpetually the “majority” as I suspect they will be, that’s fine, too. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but this is, in fact, a free country. If someone chooses not to have children or a child at a certain point in time (when they’re a broke student, for instance), that’s fine and they shouldn’t be coerced to do otherwise. If someone chooses to have TEN kids, that’s fine too, so long as they have the means to support those children. If someone chooses to marry outside of their race, that’s fine, too. If someone chooses to marry INSIDE their race, also fine. If someone chooses to move to an area that has little or no diversity, they have that right and that is also fine. If someone chooses to marry someone of their same gender, also fine. What makes Canada the best country in the world is that no matter what you want to do, you have that right, so long as you’re not impeding on anyone else’s. It’s the emphasis on HARM REDUCTION. There is really little difference between you and Eriksen, who you clearly despise. You both seek to control people to your own preferences instead of letting them live freely and happily and allowing society to evolve in whatever direction it will take. I honestly think you’d live longer if you let go of the need to control.

          • You accuse me of wanting to “control people”. This is absolutely misdirected. It is the liberal social engineers who want to control people. That is what the whole civil rights era was all about. Now, perfectly good white neighborhoods are being deliberately destroyed by “low-income” (i.e. black) housing projects funded by the government. Now, why would the government deliberately destroy white neighborhoods like that? I mean we are long past the point where it can be plausibly denied that black people destroy neighborhoods. Liberals say that they are the way they are because of “poverty” and “discrimination” and “racism.” Okay that may be true. I don’t claim to know the reasons for black dysfunction, but I do know this: moving black people into white schools and neighborhoods does not fix black dysfunction, it ruins the schools and neighborhoods. There simply is no denying this anymore. Everything whites do to try to escape is slapped down.

            You’ll remember that the schools were desegregated at the point of a gun in the 60s. Everything, and I mean everything, that conservatives predicted has come true. Test scores are fallng and everyone pretends not to know why even though in their heart of hearts they know its the demographics. Chaos rules the day as teachers are too frightened of their own pupils to impose order and discipline. Punish a black or hispanic child and the teacher is “racist.”

            Just recently, Obama issued an executive order demanding that public schools promote “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.” In other words, don’t discipline black students no matter what they do. Everyone knows that black children misbehave more than white children. They are 13% of the population and they commit over 50% of the crimes after all. Now how is this not going to be a giant target on white children’s backs? Now, whites will get to pay for public schools that are utterly unsuitable for white children. It does not matter that most black children behave. It only takes one or two thugs-in-training to make life a living hell for white children.

            Telling whites that they have no right to try to control the demographics of their community is basically telling them that they should have to put up with a life of violence and intimidation. There is no reason why whites should put up with this. Liberal social engineers never, ever admit that their “reforms” are a failure. They just blame whitey and move on to the next “progressive” cause. Heck I understand that you Canucks haven’t been able to figure out black people either, given that 25% of your prison population is black while only 2.5% of the general population is black. Hey I have a good idea. Why don’t bring in tens of thousands of African immigrants every year to “enrich” Canada! That’ll be just the thing.

            If it was natural for ethnic populations to mix, there would be no need for anti-discrimination laws, because people would simply ignore race and ethnicity. The fact that the government demands these laws shows that they themselves understand that people prefer their own.

            You say that having a neighbor of another ethnicity will not damage ethnic cohesion. This has been scientifically proven to be false by a liberal Harvard researcher who hoped to find the exact opposite. He found that people “hunker down” when their neighborhoods become more diverse, and that they not only do not trust ethnically distinct persons in their neighborhood, they lose trust EVEN FOR THEIR OWN. In other words, diversity destroys community life!

          • I don’t know how you could possibly say you believe that whites will always be a majority in Canada. That is simply not a possiblity given the current size of the white population and the hundreds of mllions of Third
            Worlders who will want to come to Canada. You need to understand that a large Chinese minority will get ever more aggressive in demanding visas and work permits for their co-ethnics in the old country. (Even as white Canadians can’t even be bothered to demand their government offer asylum to white children targeted for a bloody hot genocide in South Africa.) Same with Indians. Immigration will accelerate and reduce whites to a minority within a few decades. Again, the result of this will be absorption of whites altogether by growing ethnic populations. White women are stereotypically viewed as highly attractive marriage partners, but dating site statistics reveal that white men are pursued just about as vigorously as white women. I have no desire to dictate anyone’s marriage partner, but there is no reason why we can’t foster ethnic pride and cohesion among whites to promote inmarriage. Otherwise, there will be no more white people. I know you don’t care about that, which I think is strange because so many whites would move heaven and earth to save the spotted owl, but could care less about their own people.

            Please understand that whites becoming a minority in Canada is in no ways simply a fortuitous result of immigration and multiculturalism. It is a feature not a bug. It is the whole purpose and intent of immigration and multiculturalism:

            “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendent qualty.” -Ben Wattenberg

            I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. -Barbara Lerner Specter

            “The strengthening of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would be more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian.” -Miriam Faine

          • You say you don’t care if white people become a minority because you have no idea what you are playing around with. Did you know that geneticist Joan Ciao at Northwestern University in Illinois found that British individualism and free thinking as opposed to Chinese love of conformity may be caused by genes that she found to differ in frequency between the two populations? Remember the British brought you the Magna Carta and started this whole freedom thing, yet extinction looms for the bulldog breed wherever he is found.
            Liberals of course just call this “pseudo-science” or “”scientific racism” because they cannot deal with it ideologically. They have swallowed hook line and sinker the premise that there are no differences between the races other than superficial physical characteristics (as though those weren’t interesting enough to warrant preservation on their own). This premise has never been proven. You would think a little bit of caution would be in order before destroying an entire race through mass immigration and “integration.”
            A fellow named William Saletan believes that the evidence is becoming overwhelming that the undisputed 15 point black-white IQ gap is probably genetic, but he is an egalitarian liberal like you. He says the problem will be solved when we “reunite the human genome” (i.e. get rid of white people through intermarriage). Again, I’m not making this up.

          • In the news today is a story about one of the nasty potential side effects of ethnic replacements. Google Bangladeshi Muslims Bur 10 Buddhist temples over Facebook Photo. Remember, these same folks are pouring into not only Canada, but Greece and Italy as well. The Parthenon, the Sistine Chapel. Will Notre Dame be a mosque or does a worse fate await it? Do you get it now? Remember, a majority is not needed. An effete cowardly indigenous population obsessed about everyone’s “rights” and “dignity” (i.e. feelings) with an exclusion to all other values is no match for a fanatical minority convinced that they are doing God’s work by destroying other peoples’ civilizations. Do you get it now? What is “secular liberal democracy” and “multiculturalism” worth to you? What is the “international community” going to do about it when “British Muslims” blow up Stonehenge?

        • Since you are so interested in “repression” perhaps you’d like to know what your hero Sigmund Freud thought about your race and civilization:
          I must confess…that your fantasy about the birth of the Savior to a mixed union did not appeal to me at all. The Lord, in that anti-Jewish period, had him born from the superior Jewish race. But I know these are my prejudices.

          I am, as you know, cured of the last shred of my predilection for the Aryan cause, and would like to take it that if the child turned out to be a boy he will develop into a stalwart Zionist. He or she must be dark in any case, no more towheads. Let us banish all these will-o’-the-wisps!

          Hannibal. . . had been the favourite hero of my later school days. . . .
          I began to understand for the first time what it meant to belong to an alien race . . . the figure of the semitic general rose still higher in my esteem. To my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organisation of the Catholic Church . . .

          No doubt Mr. Freud would be pleased with his white-hating disciple Al Goldstein:

          “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism. Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged…”

          I can only imagine Mr. Freud chortling in the pit of hell at the destruction he has unleased upon white families and the untold tens millions of little “towhead” babies never born as a result of Freudian filth-peddling.

          • First of all, I have already stipulated that I am not Jewish. It must be symptomatic of your pervasive mental illness that you keep referring to me insistently as though I am. Secondly, I think I’ve been beyond patient and more than respectful (given the audience) towards you, but I simply cannot stomach anymore of the disgusting, sociopathic and vitriolic language you use to refer to entire ethnic groups any longer. Good riddance.

            To me, it’s pretty much enough said when you have managed to denigrate and insult basically every ethnic group apart from your own on the face of this earth, (obviously with no self-awareness of how psychotic this comes across), but also with absolutely no knowledge of what ethnic group your host belongs to. If race was really as significant a determinant as you claim it is, it would not be the case that you demonstrate such flagrant audacity in trying to guess, only to be wrong.

          • Oh gosh. I wasn’t saying that you were Jewish. I was merely pointing out that the Sexual Revolution was and continues to be basically a genocidal conspiracy against Europeans, many of whom, such as yourself, have internalized it.

            I don’t see how I referred to any other groups with “disgusting, sociopathic, and vitriolic language” unless by dissenting from the usual “we all bleed red” and “theres only one race the human race” platitudes, or by quoting anti-whites in their own words.

            Did I say something that was untrue?

    • Raphael Lemkin in his masterpiece “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” (1943) invented the term “genocide,”by combining “genos” (race, people) and “cide” (to kill).
      Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

      “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”

  6. Only the brain dead haven’t figured out by now that anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

  7. Pro-Choice=Pro-Infanticide. Flooding All and Only White countries with Non-Whites is Genocide. Anti-Racism is a codeword for Anti-White

  8. I absolutely love my country, but the abortion issue is where I am embarrassed and disgusted with it. Opening the issue to debate does not mean we will become an anti-pro-choice country or that women’s rights will be limited. Even if abortion is restricted in some small way, women would still have the right to choose to have one. There are some instances where there should be restrictions on abortion (such as really late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions). Even with such restrictions, there are often exceptions allowed if the abortion is really necessary (to save the mother, in cases of rape or incest, etc.). That seems perfectly logical to me–opening to debate the possibility of changing the legal definition of a human being (possibly to when a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb). If you can survive on your own, you are a separate human being and not just a piece of disposable matter inside of a woman.

    • Beautifully articulated.

    • Life begins at the first mitosis when all the genetic material is replicated for a unique individual.

      Abortion is a ritual murder performed before an idol of vanity, upon the altar of conceit.

      You just can’t handle the truth…

      • Actually, I completely agree with you (sensational language aside). But just stating that belief gets nowhere in a debate on the issue. My point was not that abortion is morally fine. I was taking issue with those shutting down any political debate on the topic (they seem to think that any change in the legal definition is limiting women’s rights, I wanted to point out that that is not the case).

        • First, I’m an Englishman… I am not British…

          Every tongue that confesses my angelic language concedes that English civilized the world.

          The only thing that makes man civilized is the ability for the weakest to kill the strongest. This happens either by learned machinations or by confederacy and it requires sensational language… something we Englishmen are experts with…

  9. So I just Googled the catchphrase of the day suspecting to be affirmed in my earlier assertion that people lacking in basic conceptual literacy are usually also lacking in imagination, and was wholly unsurprised that not only was the imbicilic jingle of “anti-racism is a codeword for anti-white” coined long ago so NOT generated as a meditation on the trial or the article (typical and expected), but that it was also coined by and reguarly espoused by vocal white supremacists who frequent those same sites!

    Am I surprised that some readers/commentators here: (a) Can’t seem to generate an original thought (b) Are so deeply entrenched in their ethnocentricism that they are redefining words to suit their own purposes, and (c) Frequent white nationalist sites while sympathizing with the defendants here? Why, not at all! They’re probably site frequenters who’ve come here to espouse the site mantra dutifully and repetitively.

    • Why don’t you tell us why you defend policies that will lead to a future with no white children, Torontochick?

      • First of all, why are you so obsessed with skin colour?

        Second of all, can you explain to me logically how you are being prevented from reproducing? Did someone forcibly sterilize you and you’re just not sharing this information?

        • It is a basic law of ecology that complete competitors cannot coexist. Eventually, one will displace the other or they will “merge.”
          In theory, whites could continue to exist by only marrying other whites and having white children, but that would require endogamy and high birth rates, which would in turn require a great deal of white pride and solidarity. You have said that you believe white pride and solidarity is “deeply indicative of psychological repression and obviously untreated damage”.
          Now I will ask you again, why do you defend policies and attitudes that will lead to a future without white children?
          Does your name end in “stein” or “berg” or some such by any chance?

          • FIrst of all, with respect to immigration policy, in all honesty, to me it is neither here nor there. I was born in this great city of ours and its demographic makeup concerns me little – I enjoy people of various ethnic backgrounds, countries of origin and ages. Moreso my reasons for engaging you are that of sheer fascination. The delusions of grandeur as you position yourself as a spokesperson on behalf of an entire ethnicity is amusing to me, to say the least. I think that as long as any immigrant in question is being encouraged to be respectful of the culture they’re coming into and foster an entrepreneurial spirit, that person can be a wonderful contributor to our society.

            Secondly, you must be aware that my vantage point is entirely different than yours and as such yours is baffling and bizarre to me. A child is a child irrespective of their colour. I see no harm in “merging” or in not merging. Again, it’s neither here nor there. From a humanitarian perspective, my concern is harm reduction and its focussed on that of the living, not the potentially born or any other such nonsense. From a harm reduction perspective, racism does no good to anyone and from a social standpoint, anti-abortion laws only serve to result in more women dying of backdoor abortions, as they did before medically-assisted abortion was legalized. One will never do away with abortion, so in essence, anti-choicers are advocating their dogmatic and often religiously motivated beliefs as being more of a priority than the life of a living woman in a difficult situation. What kind of maniac would do that?

            Once again, I know that you have delusions of self-appointed grandeur, but my comments about being deeply troubled were in fact directed at you specifically, not at any entire group, although with that being said, ethnocentrists like yourself certainly seem to have a few screws loose . The irony of course is that in consistently viewing any implication I make that is directed at YOU in particular as a slight against the group to which you belong, seemingly unable to internalize that its intended target is in fact you, you only serve to validate my point about perhaps needing to seek some sort of treatment for a lack of a healthy and normal sense of individual identity/sense of self.

            No, I am not Jewish. Could you please explain to me the relevance of my religious affiliation or lack thereof?

          • You see no harm in a future without white children. I disagree.
            Also, its not just skin color. Its our whole heritage that is at stake. A student at Towson University is trying to start a white student union. Do you know what a black student said about it, Torontochick? Here is what she said:
            “What is white history? What is white culture? Because if you look back over history, nothing positive has come out of white history or white culture, because you’ve done nothing good,” one black student said at the meeting.
            Google it yourself if you don’t believe it. This is what our future leaders are learning. Apparently, the university approves of her statement because there has been no statement by any university official to the effect that this was “hate speech” or any sort of offense to white people whatsoever. How do you think a white minority is going to fare in such a Zeitgeist?

            Take a look at the Trayvon Martin affair for a glimpse into the future.

          • Although I think it could have been stated more diplomatically, I actually agree with her. What IS “white history?” What IS “white culture?” It’s dehumanizing to reduce a people group to just their skin colour. Every “race” has a vast array of cultures and histories that comprise the individuals within. For that matter, every individual has a vast personal history and heritage and many people of VARIOUS ethnicities – I know you think every comment applies to your race only because you are an extreme ethnocentrist and can’t see things from any other pov – would take offense to being viewed as their colour before their profession, family name, country of origin, musical subculture, etc. I agree with Morgan Freeman as well – get rid of “black history month.” I mean, what is that? It’s divisive and trivializing. The “black experience” is not monolithic as well. It’s as numerous and multifaceted as the number of black individuals. I was friends in college with one of the leaders of The Polish Club at Ryerson University. (Full disclosure: I’m not Polish, either). No one and least of all me, took exception to her participating in or spearheading this group. If that’s an interest of hers, I don’t see why not induldge it (although it’s again mighty premature to assume that everyone is as invested in their heritage as you and her seem to be. Some of us genuinely don’t care about that stuff). The type of group you are describing, though, is fundamentally superficial. If the entire extent of your “heritage” is comprised of being born with a certain skin colour or phenotype, then I would have to encourage you to perhaps find some new accomplishments and maybe encourage your children to do the same. I’m sure such an assertion is deeply offensive to you and you would go so far as to call it “hate speech.” Not sure there’s much that can be done to bridge the gigantic schism in our worldviews.

          • Its odd that you claim its bad to be ethnocentric, but then go on to say that immigrants should respect the host culture. That is totally at odds with multiculturalism.
            Multiculturalism contains a within its very essence. It protects the group rights of non-Western peoples while simultaneously denying the host (Western) nation any group rights of its own. The host culture is seen as a neutral site characterized by its provision of individual rights, which apply to everyone, and of group rights, which apply only to non-whites. The Anglo-French founders are mandated to be ethnically neutral and historically disinterested; representatives of certain deracinated values that belong to ‘humanity.’ While multicultural ideologues implicitly recognize that minorities have deep attachment to their ethnic backgrounds, and, in this vein, recognize that humans do have a natural love of their own heritage and ethnicity; they call upon whites to practice historical amnesia and pretend they were not the creators of Canada’s institutions, parliamentary traditions, and common law. The historical fact that Canada was built as a nation state around a founding ethnic core must be discarded and hidden from students.
            -Richard Duchesne

            Radical leftists oppose assimilation because they believe it is fascist. They are total nihilists who believe it is bad to try to preserve anything, including a culture. At least they are consistent. I mean if there is no sense trying to preserve a race of people biologically, what is the point trying to preserve their cultural heritage? If everything is equal and it is immoral to prefer your own kind and culture, well then there is no sense demanding anything from immigrants. Out with Shakespeare, and in with the next fashionable trendy minority literature. That is what large and powerful minorities demand, and it is considered “racist” to resist.

          • Canada is a secular liberal democracy that embraces egalitarianism and equal gender rights. That is our culture. As much as I think immigrants should be encouraged to embrace our culture, (for instance, in quietly observing whatever religious rituals they may have and not beating you over the head with their religious beliefs), you and your ilk openly oppose our culture as well. I mean, you have a follower here who has spoken fondly of “executing homosexuals.” To be frank, maybe you should take a look at your own backyard. That is not being respectful of Canadian culture.

          • There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Canada will remain a secular liberal democracy. Take “hate speech” laws. Multiculturalists say that diversity is a strength to justify their demands for mass immigration. Then they use that diversity as an excuse to tell whites what they may or may not say about their neighbors. Notice that it is not hate speech to talk about “white privilege”, a phrase that is arguably genocidal under Genocide Watch guidelines. No, it is only whites who are silenced under these laws. Throughout Europe, hate speech laws function essentially as anti-blasphemy laws commonly found in the Middle East. Women will be subjected de facto to Muslim standards of dress to prevent rape. This is called creeping sharia and its coming to a theater near you.
            Confident, proud cultures will not assimilate into an effete “secular liberal democracy that embraces egalitarianism and equal gender rights. It will use the freedoms of such a society to dominate it. Just the other day, a Norwegian mayor attended a rally held in protest of the “Innocence of Muslims” move. Read the tea leaves. Under your “harm reduction” standard of moral reasoning, the sensible thing to do in any confrontation with militant Muslims is to appease them, even at the expense of the rights of a more peaceful indigenous population.
            We see this over and over again. George Zimmerman would not be in prison facing trial for murder right now if not for Florida authorities being afraid of black mob violence. See. Mobs of black people (not all black people) used their right to free speech and assembly to demand ethnic favoritism.
            Your secular liberal democracy is doomed. It is decadent and everywhere in retreat. It has no affirmative values to defend. Its only conception of the good is the pursuit of Pleasure and avoidance of Pain. It cares for nothing but getting through the day without full scale ethnic conflict breaking out. The only question is what will replace it.

            The Russians and Chinese are resisting Washington’s “Open Society” (New World Order) agenda and the USA has so badly weakened itself with outsourcing, mass Third World immigration, and out-of-control social spending that it can no longer impose its will on the rest of the world.

            Oh well. At least that will be the end of multiculturalism.

          • Fearmongering.

            Tell me, why do you think it is that our “multicultural hellhole” is so much safer and more prosperous than Russia? Why do you think it is that our “creeping Sharias” cause fewer problems than Russia’s gangs?

            If you are respectful of other people, individually or en masse, they will be respectful of you. You should Youtube “Locked Up Abroad – Kidnapped In Iraq.” Canadian journalist Scott Taylor is alive today and was released by a member of the Taliban once he was able to convince them that he was Canadian and not American. Apparently, the latter having a much more reprehensible reputation abroad than the former.

  10. When we have: Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for
    Everybody, what do we have overtime?

    We have
    solid Black only and Solid Asian only countries, exclusively for Blacks and
    Asians, based upon exclusive genetics and culture. Culture is respected and so tolerable to these groups. They do not need to tolerate massive inflows
    of invaders and made to tolerate foreign cultures.

    We have
    more and more non-whites in White countries since the right of Whites to
    exclusive territory is denied them.

    We have
    fewer and fewer White people.

    is this not White genocide?

    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

  11. Do we hear governments, the mass media, and academia calling for Japan to bring in millions of non-Japanese people and assimilate with them because they’re “not diverse enough”?

    Exactly — we ONLY hear this about White countries. You anti-Whites are calling for the genocide of White people.

    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.