Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Wouldn't want to blow over that straw man or anything.

I mean look at the rhetoric by democrats here too . They have called the idea of even deporting all the illegal immigrants who have come here in the past 5 years as racist and believe any cut back in legal immigration as so .

Also given how immigration has been handled in Europe for the past decade , it’s obvious policy makers have had that attitude as well .

[Upper Canada Tory]

I think that generally speaking, given how badly mismanaged immigration policy in the West has been in the last decade, the anti-immigration backlash will only increase and governments will be forced to significantly cut immigration levels in the near future.

Immigration in much of the West used to be a net positive - it definitely used to be a net positive for Canada, until not even that long ago, and without most of the detrimental economic effects and lack of assimilation one sees now.

The problem is that Justin Trudeau's government is clearly to some degree compromised by special interests and possibly even foreign interests, and he thought that he could destroy our immigration policy and social cohesion and that no one would notice because of his vacuous slogans ('muh diversity is our strength, muh post-national state, etc.').

If you're on the left side of the political spectrum, get ready, because the next 10 to 15 years will be a period of rising anti-immigration politics. No one is going to tolerate badly managed immigration policy out of fear of being called certain names anymore.

[Upper Canada Tory]

In other news;


Former MP considering bid to replace Trudeau as Liberal leader after party's byelection defeat

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I think that generally speaking, given how badly mismanaged immigration policy in the West has been in the last decade, the anti-immigration backlash will only increase and governments will be forced to significantly cut immigration levels in the near future.

Immigration in much of the West used to be a net positive - it definitely used to be a net positive for Canada, until not even that long ago, and without most of the detrimental economic effects and lack of assimilation one sees now.

The problem is that Justin Trudeau's government is clearly to some degree compromised by special interests and possibly even foreign interests, and he thought that he could destroy our immigration policy and social cohesion and that no one would notice because of his vacuous slogans ('muh diversity is our strength, muh post-national state, etc.').

If you're on the left side of the political spectrum, get ready, because the next 10 to 15 years will be a period of rising anti-immigration politics. No one is going to tolerate badly managed immigration policy out of fear of being called certain names anymore.

Personally, I love Canadian multiculturalism. And the biggest threat to Canadian multiculturalism right now is that the Liberal government is using immigration as a wage suppression tactic. Wage suppression is one of the ways to counteract the inflationary pressures of an active fiscal policy, and the last 9 years have shown us that active fiscal policy is all they've got in their locker. The Liberals don't have a Plan B for the economy. It's spend, spend, spend, spend during good times, spend during bad times. And I'm increasingly convinced that the reason they keep pushing a massive influx of unskilled labour on us, against our will, is because the post-COVID global economy is much more prone to inflationary pressure, and wage suppression is a release valve. There are other release valves of course. Raising taxes is one, but considering the mood of the nation, they can only do this around the edges (like capital gains). Cutting spending is another, but they're clearly unwilling to do that. It would be so mean and not nice if they cut spending! But suppressing wages through high immigration, well, they can hide behind the veneer of multiculturalism and diversity, and accuse detractors of being racist.

Ironically, this is increasingly turning Canadians against immigration, because they're increasingly seeing immigrants as competitors, not contributors. In turn, it's already starting to drive a wedge between different ethnic groups, which will inevitably erode the multicultural nature of the country that we grew up in, and turn this country into an unrecognizable mess where Canadians turn on Canadian because of their background.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

It's actually pretty disheartening how much anti-Indian sentiment has skyrocketed recently. And it's more than just cultural ignorance, which is a constant reality in a multicultural society, people seem to have been emboldened to be outright racist towards Indians. And here again, Liberals have this mind-numbingly naive worldview where counteracting such views is simply a matter of saying "racism is bad, diversity is our strength" instead of examining where they might have gone wrong.

For anyone interested, there's this Indo-Canadian gentleman, Darshan Maharaja, who is critical of Canadian immigration policy from an Indo-Canadian perspective, and he has a video specifically addressing this rise of anti-Indian sentiment. It goes into some of the specific challenges that those of us outside that community won't be privy to, but is relevant to all Canadians in trying to understand the on-the-ground challenges of Canadian mass immigration, particularly coming from India.

[CumbrianLefty]

How much is anti-Indian sentiment connected with political or religious factors?

[gerritcole]

id bet a lot that anti indian racism won't cause any sort of outrage because theyre not the right type of minority for all that

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Justin Trudeau needs to step aside.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I think that generally speaking, given how badly mismanaged immigration policy in the West has been in the last decade, the anti-immigration backlash will only increase and governments will be forced to significantly cut immigration levels in the near future.

Immigration in much of the West used to be a net positive - it definitely used to be a net positive for Canada, until not even that long ago, and without most of the detrimental economic effects and lack of assimilation one sees now.

The problem is that Justin Trudeau's government is clearly to some degree compromised by special interests and possibly even foreign interests, and he thought that he could destroy our immigration policy and social cohesion and that no one would notice because of his vacuous slogans ('muh diversity is our strength, muh post-national state, etc.').

If you're on the left side of the political spectrum, get ready, because the next 10 to 15 years will be a period of rising anti-immigration politics. No one is going to tolerate badly managed immigration policy out of fear of being called certain names anymore.

Personally, I love Canadian multiculturalism. And the biggest threat to Canadian multiculturalism right now is that the Liberal government is using immigration as a wage suppression tactic. Wage suppression is one of the ways to counteract the inflationary pressures of an active fiscal policy, and the last 9 years have shown us that active fiscal policy is all they've got in their locker. The Liberals don't have a Plan B for the economy. It's spend, spend, spend, spend during good times, spend during bad times. And I'm increasingly convinced that the reason they keep pushing a massive influx of unskilled labour on us, against our will, is because the post-COVID global economy is much more prone to inflationary pressure, and wage suppression is a release valve. There are other release valves of course. Raising taxes is one, but considering the mood of the nation, they can only do this around the edges (like capital gains). Cutting spending is another, but they're clearly unwilling to do that. It would be so mean and not nice if they cut spending! But suppressing wages through high immigration, well, they can hide behind the veneer of multiculturalism and diversity, and accuse detractors of being racist.

Ironically, this is increasingly turning Canadians against immigration, because they're increasingly seeing immigrants as competitors, not contributors. In turn, it's already starting to drive a wedge between different ethnic groups, which will inevitably erode the multicultural nature of the country that we grew up in, and turn this country into an unrecognizable mess where Canadians turn on Canadian because of their background.

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the word 'multiculturalism'. Simply because I don't think the word (or at least the way it is percieved) accurately describes the kind of society Canadians want.

I think Canadians want an ethnically diverse society where people are free to preserve their heritage, but they also want immigrants and their offspring to assimilate over time. Multiple polls have shown this - Canadians are more likely than people in most other countries to want immigrants to assimilate (the polls usually use other terminology, like 'fit in' or 'adapt to', but the message is quite clear nonetheless).

Now, I think for most of the last several decades, that is roughly the kind of society that we have had - our selective immigration system made sure that while people were free to preserve their heritage, they also become 'Canadianized', because it was clear that Canadians had a national identity, and immigrants came here to be a part of it. If this is what 'multiculturalism' meant, I would have no problem with it. When I was in high school and university (which wasn't even that long ago), and my school was very diverse, pretty much everyone who was born and raised in Canada was fully Canadian in terms of their identity regardless of if they had Chinese or Indian or Italian or Ukrainian parents - they spoke English with a Canadian accent, were interested in Canadian things, were patriotic about Canada, etc. They preserved aspects of their heritage, which is fine, but being Canadian was important.

The problem is that while the system at first worked mostly fine, rhetorical multiculturalism has clearly done serious damage to Canada, because as we have seen, seemingly harmless rhetoric from politicians around 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' quickly evolved into Justin Trudeau's slogans around a 'post-national state with no core identity', almost as if the latter is simply the logical conclusion of the former. Then comes Trudeau's policy of bringing in 1 million people worth of cheap labour every year, and there goes all our progress and ethnic integration we had achieved in previous years. If you talk to young people today (people usually aged 22 or younger), many of them have completely internalized the idea that Canada is a blank slate with no identity - this is probably because they spent the better part of their youth listening to Justin Trudeau's slogans about Canada having no core identity, and maybe possibly due to 'multicultural' propaganda from schools as well. Young people are the future, and I'm not sure if this way of thinking can be fixed or reversed.

One other aspect that I think is threatening Canadian diversity/'multiculturalism'/etc, is all of the recent allegations of dual loyalties in our government, such as the NSICOP report or the Harjit Sajjan allegations. Now, I am aware that these are allegations - we don't yet know whether or not they are true and they still need to be proven, not to mention that we don't have the full context from the redacted intelligence report that has been released (or some of these claims are from unnamed individuals leaking to the media, which deserve more scrutiny). I am also aware that people of ethnic diaspora backgrounds are not monoliths - any MP that has actually been compromised by foreign interests probably has more to do with the kinds of individuals Trudeau picked to be in his caucus rather than a representation of members of various ethnic diasporas in Canada. Also, it may even be that the MPs that are compromised by foreign governments are not compromised by the country of their ancestry. But more information needs to come out and probably will come out, and if we find out that there are some MPs in our government that deliberately prioritized the interests of their heritage country (or their heritage ethnic/religious group) over those of our own country, that might create a lot of suspicion and hurt a lot of people's faith in trying to maintain a diverse society.

Anyway, it looks like we may need to have some difficult conversations in Canada.

[MaxQue]

I think that generally speaking, given how badly mismanaged immigration policy in the West has been in the last decade, the anti-immigration backlash will only increase and governments will be forced to significantly cut immigration levels in the near future.

Immigration in much of the West used to be a net positive - it definitely used to be a net positive for Canada, until not even that long ago, and without most of the detrimental economic effects and lack of assimilation one sees now.

The problem is that Justin Trudeau's government is clearly to some degree compromised by special interests and possibly even foreign interests, and he thought that he could destroy our immigration policy and social cohesion and that no one would notice because of his vacuous slogans ('muh diversity is our strength, muh post-national state, etc.').

If you're on the left side of the political spectrum, get ready, because the next 10 to 15 years will be a period of rising anti-immigration politics. No one is going to tolerate badly managed immigration policy out of fear of being called certain names anymore.

Personally, I love Canadian multiculturalism. And the biggest threat to Canadian multiculturalism right now is that the Liberal government is using immigration as a wage suppression tactic. Wage suppression is one of the ways to counteract the inflationary pressures of an active fiscal policy, and the last 9 years have shown us that active fiscal policy is all they've got in their locker. The Liberals don't have a Plan B for the economy. It's spend, spend, spend, spend during good times, spend during bad times. And I'm increasingly convinced that the reason they keep pushing a massive influx of unskilled labour on us, against our will, is because the post-COVID global economy is much more prone to inflationary pressure, and wage suppression is a release valve. There are other release valves of course. Raising taxes is one, but considering the mood of the nation, they can only do this around the edges (like capital gains). Cutting spending is another, but they're clearly unwilling to do that. It would be so mean and not nice if they cut spending! But suppressing wages through high immigration, well, they can hide behind the veneer of multiculturalism and diversity, and accuse detractors of being racist.

Ironically, this is increasingly turning Canadians against immigration, because they're increasingly seeing immigrants as competitors, not contributors. In turn, it's already starting to drive a wedge between different ethnic groups, which will inevitably erode the multicultural nature of the country that we grew up in, and turn this country into an unrecognizable mess where Canadians turn on Canadian because of their background.

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the word 'multiculturalism'. Simply because I don't think the word (or at least the way it is percieved) accurately describes the kind of society Canadians want.

I think Canadians want an ethnically diverse society where people are free to preserve their heritage, but they also want immigrants and their offspring to assimilate over time. Multiple polls have shown this - Canadians are more likely than people in most other countries to want immigrants to assimilate (the polls usually use other terminology, like 'fit in' or 'adapt to', but the message is quite clear nonetheless).

Now, I think for most of the last several decades, that is roughly the kind of society that we have had - our selective immigration system made sure that while people were free to preserve their heritage, they also become 'Canadianized', because it was clear that Canadians had a national identity, and immigrants came here to be a part of it. If this is what 'multiculturalism' meant, I would have no problem with it. When I was in high school and university (which wasn't even that long ago), and my school was very diverse, pretty much everyone who was born and raised in Canada was fully Canadian in terms of their identity regardless of if they had Chinese or Indian or Italian or Ukrainian parents - they spoke English with a Canadian accent, were interested in Canadian things, were patriotic about Canada, etc. They preserved aspects of their heritage, which is fine, but being Canadian was important.

The problem is that while the system at first worked mostly fine, rhetorical multiculturalism has clearly done serious damage to Canada, because as we have seen, seemingly harmless rhetoric from politicians around 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' quickly evolved into Justin Trudeau's slogans around a 'post-national state with no core identity', almost as if the latter is simply the logical conclusion of the former. Then comes Trudeau's policy of bringing in 1 million people worth of cheap labour every year, and there goes all our progress and ethnic integration we had achieved in previous years. If you talk to young people today (people usually aged 22 or younger), many of them have completely internalized the idea that Canada is a blank slate with no identity - this is probably because they spent the better part of their youth listening to Justin Trudeau's slogans about Canada having no core identity, and maybe possibly due to 'multicultural' propaganda from schools as well. Young people are the future, and I'm not sure if this way of thinking can be fixed or reversed.

One other aspect that I think is threatening Canadian diversity/'multiculturalism'/etc, is all of the recent allegations of dual loyalties in our government, such as the NSICOP report or the Harjit Sajjan allegations. Now, I am aware that these are allegations - we don't yet know whether or not they are true and they still need to be proven, not to mention that we don't have the full context from the redacted intelligence report that has been released (or some of these claims are from unnamed individuals leaking to the media, which deserve more scrutiny). I am also aware that people of ethnic diaspora backgrounds are not monoliths - any MP that has actually been compromised by foreign interests probably has more to do with the kinds of individuals Trudeau picked to be in his caucus rather than a representation of members of various ethnic diasporas in Canada. Also, it may even be that the MPs that are compromised by foreign governments are not compromised by the country of their ancestry. But more information needs to come out and probably will come out, and if we find out that there are some MPs in our government that deliberately prioritized the interests of their heritage country (or their heritage ethnic/religious group) over those of our own country, that might create a lot of suspicion and hurt a lot of people's faith in trying to maintain a diverse society.

Anyway, it looks like we may need to have some difficult conversations in Canada.

Well, there is the clear case of Anthony Housefather, which the media mainly refuses to cover, by fear of being viciously attacked by a certain lobby.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well yes, either all lobbies are undesirable or none are.

Picking and choosing is the worst option of all.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Well yes, either all lobbies are undesirable or none are.

Picking and choosing is the worst option of all.

I agree, but there aren't any allegations (as far as I know, unless he is one of the MPs implicated in the redacted NSICOP report) of Anthony Housefather wittingly helping a foreign country influence our elections or prioritizing foreign citizens over Canadians during an evacuation when their lives are on the line, or anything like that. If there were, however, you and MaxQue would be right.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the word 'multiculturalism'. Simply because I don't think the word (or at least the way it is percieved) accurately describes the kind of society Canadians want.

I think Canadians want an ethnically diverse society where people are free to preserve their heritage, but they also want immigrants and their offspring to assimilate over time. Multiple polls have shown this - Canadians are more likely than people in most other countries to want immigrants to assimilate (the polls usually use other terminology, like 'fit in' or 'adapt to', but the message is quite clear nonetheless).

Yes I agree we have a weird thing with etymology in this country sometimes. You mentioned assimilation, and this is also another one of these 'bad words' in Canadian politics and culture. Assimilation as a voluntary process is a normal and perfectly healthy part of immigration. In some cases, the state might need to give a 'nudge' (i.e. teaching the official language to immigrants who may not speak it, etc). In the Canadian lexicon though, because we associate 'assimilation' with the forced cultural erasure of for example native people, we shy away from that word. Which is fine, I'm sympathetic to that, but not drawing a distinction between forced, unnatural assimilation and the natural process that immigrants go through is just incorrect.

I come back to the 'melting pot vs salad bowl' narrative, which has never really rung true to me, and as you mention it's not really what the Canadian public meant by multiculturalism. I'm defensive of the concept of multiculturalism because to a certain degree we can never not be multicultural. We're a New World country, and there are millions of people already living here who have strong cultural ties to other countries. This has always been the case, it's not something new. I think where we should draw the line is multicultural nationalism vs multicultural post-nationalism.

What I mean by multicultural nationalism is an acknowledgment of the multicultural nature of Canada, but the promotion of an overarching Canadian identity that takes precedence over all others. Hyphenated Canadians will always exist, and especially when we're talking about first-generation immigrants, it's naive to expect that somehow the culture that someone grew up within will just vanish the second they hop off the plane at YYZ. What's important is that those hyphenated Canadians become part of the same nation as anyone else, because the alternative is forming parallel societies, and that can't be good for Canada.

Now, I think for most of the last several decades, that is roughly the kind of society that we have had - our selective immigration system made sure that while people were free to preserve their heritage, they also become 'Canadianized', because it was clear that Canadians had a national identity, and immigrants came here to be a part of it. If this is what 'multiculturalism' meant, I would have no problem with it. When I was in high school and university (which wasn't even that long ago), and my school was very diverse, pretty much everyone who was born and raised in Canada was fully Canadian in terms of their identity regardless of if they had Chinese or Indian or Italian or Ukrainian parents - they spoke English with a Canadian accent, were interested in Canadian things, were patriotic about Canada, etc. They preserved aspects of their heritage, which is fine, but being Canadian was important.

The problem is that while the system at first worked mostly fine, rhetorical multiculturalism has clearly done serious damage to Canada, because as we have seen, seemingly harmless rhetoric from politicians around 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' quickly evolved into Justin Trudeau's slogans around a 'post-national state with no core identity', almost as if the latter is simply the logical conclusion of the former. Then comes Trudeau's policy of bringing in 1 million people worth of cheap labour every year, and there goes all our progress and ethnic integration we had achieved in previous years. If you talk to young people today (people usually aged 22 or younger), many of them have completely internalized the idea that Canada is a blank slate with no identity - this is probably because they spent the better part of their youth listening to Justin Trudeau's slogans about Canada having no core identity, and maybe possibly due to 'multicultural' propaganda from schools as well. Young people are the future, and I'm not sure if this way of thinking can be fixed or reversed.

One other aspect that I think is threatening Canadian diversity/'multiculturalism'/etc, is all of the recent allegations of dual loyalties in our government, such as the NSICOP report or the Harjit Sajjan allegations. Now, I am aware that these are allegations - we don't yet know whether or not they are true and they still need to be proven, not to mention that we don't have the full context from the redacted intelligence report that has been released (or some of these claims are from unnamed individuals leaking to the media, which deserve more scrutiny). I am also aware that people of ethnic diaspora backgrounds are not monoliths - any MP that has actually been compromised by foreign interests probably has more to do with the kinds of individuals Trudeau picked to be in his caucus rather than a representation of members of various ethnic diasporas in Canada. Also, it may even be that the MPs that are compromised by foreign governments are not compromised by the country of their ancestry. But more information needs to come out and probably will come out, and if we find out that there are some MPs in our government that deliberately prioritized the interests of their heritage country (or their heritage ethnic/religious group) over those of our own country, that might create a lot of suspicion and hurt a lot of people's faith in trying to maintain a diverse society.

Anyway, it looks like we may need to have some difficult conversations in Canada.

Fully agree with that. What I will say is, rather than rejecting it, we need to reclaim multiculturalism from the absolute perversion of the word that progressive politicians have made of it. Like you said, many young Canadians have internalized Justin Trudeau's version of post-national multiculturalism, where we have no sense of belonging other than the fact that we pay taxes to the same government. But people always want to belong to something greater than themselves, this is true across cultures and across time. So if it's not to the idea of Canadian nationhood, exactly what is it?

There are times when I think I genuinely understand Marxists more than modern-day liberals. I don't agree with their ideology at all, but at least when Marxists reject traditional notions of belonging (culture, religion, etc) they seek to replace it with class. 21st century liberals like Trudeau Jr (as opposed to 20th century liberals like Trudeau Sr) seem to have no answer to this.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

With all that said about multiculturalism/immigration, another thing I take real issue with is the way Canadian progressives have appropriated American race relations rhetoric (largely concerning Black Americans, who exist in a very different context as nonwhite immigrants to Canada, as nonwhite Canadian immigrants chose to come here and most Black Americans were brought in as literal slaves).

Consider the following sequence of events:
1. Bring in tons of immigrants, most of whom are not white, and promise them a better life.
2. Fail to give them a better life, because really you're just using them as serfs for big box stores.
3. Teach their children that this is a consequence of living in a supposedly white supremacist society.

Now you tell me how that leads to anything other than wide scale resentment of your own countrymen.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

With all that said about multiculturalism/immigration, another thing I take real issue with is the way Canadian progressives have appropriated American race relations rhetoric (largely concerning Black Americans, who exist in a very different context as nonwhite immigrants to Canada, as nonwhite Canadian immigrants chose to come here and most Black Americans were brought in as literal slaves).

Consider the following sequence of events:
1. Bring in tons of immigrants, most of whom are not white, and promise them a better life.
2. Fail to give them a better life, because really you're just using them as serfs for big box stores.
3. Teach their children that this is a consequence of living in a supposedly white supremacist society.

Now you tell me how that leads to anything other than wide scale resentment of your own countrymen.

B.C. act to streamline foreign credential recognition comes into effect July 1
https://www.cicnews.com/2024/06/b-c-act-to-streamline-foreign-credential-recognition-comes-into-effect-july-1-0645056.html#gs.bj71ae

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Well yes, either all lobbies are undesirable or none are.

Picking and choosing is the worst option of all.

I agree, but there aren't any allegations (as far as I know, unless he is one of the MPs implicated in the redacted NSICOP report) of Anthony Housefather wittingly helping a foreign country influence our elections or prioritizing foreign citizens over Canadians during an evacuation when their lives are on the line, or anything like that. If there were, however, you and MaxQue would be right.

I'm not sure why those are the only criteria. Housefather has implied if not outright said that when it comes to that region that he places the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of Canada.

It's also interesting to see the media and the Conservatives enabling Housefather when during the Jodi Wilson Raybould affair they correctly argued then that he was a grubby politician with zero integrity or substance.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Well yes, either all lobbies are undesirable or none are.

Picking and choosing is the worst option of all.

I agree, but there aren't any allegations (as far as I know, unless he is one of the MPs implicated in the redacted NSICOP report) of Anthony Housefather wittingly helping a foreign country influence our elections or prioritizing foreign citizens over Canadians during an evacuation when their lives are on the line, or anything like that. If there were, however, you and MaxQue would be right.

I'm not sure why those are the only criteria. Housefather has implied if not outright said that when it comes to that region that he places the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of Canada.

It's also interesting to see the media and the Conservatives enabling Housefather when during the Jodi Wilson Raybould affair they correctly argued then that he was a grubby politician with zero integrity or substance.

Can you please provide a link to him saying/implying this? I have never heard it.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Well yes, either all lobbies are undesirable or none are.

Picking and choosing is the worst option of all.

I agree, but there aren't any allegations (as far as I know, unless he is one of the MPs implicated in the redacted NSICOP report) of Anthony Housefather wittingly helping a foreign country influence our elections or prioritizing foreign citizens over Canadians during an evacuation when their lives are on the line, or anything like that. If there were, however, you and MaxQue would be right.

I'm not sure why those are the only criteria. Housefather has implied if not outright said that when it comes to that region that he places the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of Canada.

It's also interesting to see the media and the Conservatives enabling Housefather when during the Jodi Wilson Raybould affair they correctly argued then that he was a grubby politician with zero integrity or substance.

Can you please provide a link to him saying/implying this? I have never heard it.

This is one quote: "It's the first time in my parliamentary career that I've had a reflection like this, where I truly felt last night that a line had been crossed. When my party members got up and cheered and gave a standing ovation to Heather McPherson and the NDP, I started reflecting as to whether or not I belonged," he said.

The motion in the end didn't even call for anything Canada hasn't long supported for that region. So, what's left?  Because he supports the terrorist Netanyahu/Likud?

This clearly implies that Housefather places the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of Canada.

The right wing Canadian Jewish lobby and the mainstream right wing media refer to this as the 'Anti Semitic' duel loyalty trope. Yet, what do we see from these other comments here? It's okay to accuse every other ethnicity in Canada of having duel loyalties?

[Upper Canada Tory]

Yes I agree we have a weird thing with etymology in this country sometimes. You mentioned assimilation, and this is also another one of these 'bad words' in Canadian politics and culture. Assimilation as a voluntary process is a normal and perfectly healthy part of immigration. In some cases, the state might need to give a 'nudge' (i.e. teaching the official language to immigrants who may not speak it, etc). In the Canadian lexicon though, because we associate 'assimilation' with the forced cultural erasure of for example native people, we shy away from that word. Which is fine, I'm sympathetic to that, but not drawing a distinction between forced, unnatural assimilation and the natural process that immigrants go through is just incorrect.

I come back to the 'melting pot vs salad bowl' narrative, which has never really rung true to me, and as you mention it's not really what the Canadian public meant by multiculturalism. I'm defensive of the concept of multiculturalism because to a certain degree we can never not be multicultural. We're a New World country, and there are millions of people already living here who have strong cultural ties to other countries. This has always been the case, it's not something new. I think where we should draw the line is multicultural nationalism vs multicultural post-nationalism.

What I mean by multicultural nationalism is an acknowledgment of the multicultural nature of Canada, but the promotion of an overarching Canadian identity that takes precedence over all others. Hyphenated Canadians will always exist, and especially when we're talking about first-generation immigrants, it's naive to expect that somehow the culture that someone grew up within will just vanish the second they hop off the plane at YYZ. What's important is that those hyphenated Canadians become part of the same nation as anyone else, because the alternative is forming parallel societies, and that can't be good for Canada.

Maybe this is part of the problem? Even if you believe in an openly multicultural society, the mere word 'assimilation' shouldn't be a bad word.

Yes, our historical treatment of Indigenous peoples is reprehensible, but that does not change the fact that we are a country and need a sense of cultural continuity to continue existing. We need a word to express that - whether it's 'assimilation', or 'Canadianization' of immigrants, you simply cannot make something that 70% of Canadians support (voluntary assimilation of immigrants over time) a forbidden word.

I think so much of the issue with immigration in modern day political culture is that Justin Trudeau style liberals have made an almost forbidden topic. Canadian politicians feel like they can't even say that they want to cut immigration (until Poilievre recently did) and they can't say they want immigrants to Canadianize/assimilate/whatever term you prefer to use.

Regardless of what kind of government policy ones prefers on immigration/multiculturalism in Canada, the discussion itself needs to take place for policy to reflect what is best for Canadian society - if we can't talk about it, we let ideological radicals like Justin Trudeau take over the subject.

Additionally, while you're right that the word 'assimilation' has become stigmatized in Canadian politics, I don't think it's actually that stigmatized in mainstream Canadian culture - Canadians still widely use the term, especially increasingly nowadays when there is discontent with immigration, but politicians avoid it.

Fully agree with that. What I will say is, rather than rejecting it, we need to reclaim multiculturalism from the absolute perversion of the word that progressive politicians have made of it. Like you said, many young Canadians have internalized Justin Trudeau's version of post-national multiculturalism, where we have no sense of belonging other than the fact that we pay taxes to the same government. But people always want to belong to something greater than themselves, this is true across cultures and across time. So if it's not to the idea of Canadian nationhood, exactly what is it?

There are times when I think I genuinely understand Marxists more than modern-day liberals. I don't agree with their ideology at all, but at least when Marxists reject traditional notions of belonging (culture, religion, etc) they seek to replace it with class. 21st century liberals like Trudeau Jr (as opposed to 20th century liberals like Trudeau Sr) seem to have no answer to this.

You may be right, but I'm doubtful the extent to which this can happen in today's political culture. Poilievre has also mastered the art of pandering because he thinks this is how you win over immigrant and ethnic diaspora votes. Note, I actually don't think this is the best approach to win over ethnic diaspora voters - I think the best approach is treating them like regular citizens with their own concerns in their communities (maybe with some cultural peculiarities, but not significantly different than Canadians that aren't from recent immigrant backgrounds).

However, Poilievre's willingness to pander is evidence of how successfully Justin Trudeau has moved the overton window on this issue - JT wanted to create post-national state where ethnic diaspora identity politics is more important than Canadian national identity, and he tried to shift our politics in that direction. Poilievre (at least so far), seems willing to continue this trend, at least to some extent. What makes us think that if he gets elected he will 'reclaim' old-school Canadian multicultural nationalism?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Yes I agree we have a weird thing with etymology in this country sometimes. You mentioned assimilation, and this is also another one of these 'bad words' in Canadian politics and culture. Assimilation as a voluntary process is a normal and perfectly healthy part of immigration. In some cases, the state might need to give a 'nudge' (i.e. teaching the official language to immigrants who may not speak it, etc). In the Canadian lexicon though, because we associate 'assimilation' with the forced cultural erasure of for example native people, we shy away from that word. Which is fine, I'm sympathetic to that, but not drawing a distinction between forced, unnatural assimilation and the natural process that immigrants go through is just incorrect.

I come back to the 'melting pot vs salad bowl' narrative, which has never really rung true to me, and as you mention it's not really what the Canadian public meant by multiculturalism. I'm defensive of the concept of multiculturalism because to a certain degree we can never not be multicultural. We're a New World country, and there are millions of people already living here who have strong cultural ties to other countries. This has always been the case, it's not something new. I think where we should draw the line is multicultural nationalism vs multicultural post-nationalism.

What I mean by multicultural nationalism is an acknowledgment of the multicultural nature of Canada, but the promotion of an overarching Canadian identity that takes precedence over all others. Hyphenated Canadians will always exist, and especially when we're talking about first-generation immigrants, it's naive to expect that somehow the culture that someone grew up within will just vanish the second they hop off the plane at YYZ. What's important is that those hyphenated Canadians become part of the same nation as anyone else, because the alternative is forming parallel societies, and that can't be good for Canada.

Maybe this is part of the problem? Even if you believe in an openly multicultural society, the mere word 'assimilation' shouldn't be a bad word.

Yes, our historical treatment of Indigenous peoples is reprehensible, but that does not change the fact that we are a country and need a sense of cultural continuity to continue existing. We need a word to express that - whether it's 'assimilation', or 'Canadianization' of immigrants, you simply cannot make something that 70% of Canadians support (voluntary assimilation of immigrants over time) a forbidden word.

I think so much of the issue with immigration in modern day political culture is that Justin Trudeau style liberals have made an almost forbidden topic. Canadian politicians feel like they can't even say that they want to cut immigration (until Poilievre recently did) and they can't say they want immigrants to Canadianize/assimilate/whatever term you prefer to use.

Regardless of what kind of government policy ones prefers on immigration/multiculturalism in Canada, the discussion itself needs to take place for policy to reflect what is best for Canadian society - if we can't talk about it, we let ideological radicals like Justin Trudeau take over the subject.

Additionally, while you're right that the word 'assimilation' has become stigmatized in Canadian politics, I don't think it's actually that stigmatized in mainstream Canadian culture - Canadians still widely use the term, especially increasingly nowadays when there is discontent with immigration, but politicians avoid it.

Fully agree with that. What I will say is, rather than rejecting it, we need to reclaim multiculturalism from the absolute perversion of the word that progressive politicians have made of it. Like you said, many young Canadians have internalized Justin Trudeau's version of post-national multiculturalism, where we have no sense of belonging other than the fact that we pay taxes to the same government. But people always want to belong to something greater than themselves, this is true across cultures and across time. So if it's not to the idea of Canadian nationhood, exactly what is it?

There are times when I think I genuinely understand Marxists more than modern-day liberals. I don't agree with their ideology at all, but at least when Marxists reject traditional notions of belonging (culture, religion, etc) they seek to replace it with class. 21st century liberals like Trudeau Jr (as opposed to 20th century liberals like Trudeau Sr) seem to have no answer to this.

You may be right, but I'm doubtful the extent to which this can happen in today's political culture. Poilievre has also mastered the art of pandering because he thinks this is how you win over immigrant and ethnic diaspora votes. Note, I actually don't think this is the best approach to win over ethnic diaspora voters - I think the best approach is treating them like regular citizens with their own concerns in their communities (maybe with some cultural peculiarities, but not significantly different than Canadians that aren't from recent immigrant backgrounds).

However, Poilievre's willingness to pander is evidence of how successfully Justin Trudeau has moved the overton window on this issue - JT wanted to create post-national state where ethnic diaspora identity politics is more important than Canadian national identity, and he tried to shift our politics in that direction. Poilievre (at least so far), seems willing to continue this trend, at least to some extent. What makes us think that if he gets elected he will 'reclaim' old-school Canadian multicultural nationalism?

Now it's my turn to ask you. What exactly has Poilievre done to pander to ethnic communities?

[Upper Canada Tory]

The right wing Canadian Jewish lobby and the mainstream right wing media refer to this as the 'Anti Semitic' duel loyalty trope. Yet, what do we see from these other comments here? It's okay to accuse every other ethnicity in Canada of having duel loyalties?

No one is saying this. Most members of any ethnicity in Canada don't have 'dual loyalties', but there are allegations fron things like the NSICOP report of MPs collaborating with foreign regimes to influence elections that need to be addressed because they create that impression and weaken social cohesion in a multiethnic society.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

The right wing Canadian Jewish lobby and the mainstream right wing media refer to this as the 'Anti Semitic' duel loyalty trope. Yet, what do we see from these other comments here? It's okay to accuse every other ethnicity in Canada of having duel loyalties?

No one is saying this. Most members of any ethnicity in Canada don't have 'dual loyalties', but there are allegations fron things like the NSICOP report of MPs collaborating with foreign regimes to influence elections that need to be addressed because they create that impression and weaken social cohesion in a multiethnic society.

Fair point, nobody has said that here.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

There are times when I think I genuinely understand Marxists more than modern-day liberals. I don't agree with their ideology at all, but at least when Marxists reject traditional notions of belonging (culture, religion, etc) they seek to replace it with class. 21st century liberals like Trudeau Jr (as opposed to 20th century liberals like Trudeau Sr) seem to have no answer to this.

I have posted this here before. You could not be more wrong about Pierre Trudeau 'Sr.'

Pierre Trudeau especially hated ethnic nationalism:
Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We
should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let
alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are few policies potentially more
disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. There is no
such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What could be more absurd than the
concept of an “all-Canadian” boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is
one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average
citizen is one which breeds mediocrity. What the world should be seeking, and what
in Canada we must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but human
values: compassion, love, and understanding.

~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Remarks at the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress,
October 9, 1971.

And Pierre Trudeau on multiculturalism (whatever he may have meant by that.)
National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense must be
founded on confidence in one’s own individual identity; out of this can grow respect
for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes, and assumptions. A
vigorous policy of multiculturalism will create this initial confidence. It can form
the basis of a society which is founded on fair play for all.
~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in the House of Commons, October 8, 1971

Pierre Trudeau was a great believer in individual rights. And I think he would have realized this for the obvious contradiction it is:

conservative: Canadians should be free to do what they want (within the law)
Also conservative: immigrants must assimilate to Canadian culture/we need to enforce? a Canadian culture.

John Turner in the 1988 free trade debate also backed this up when he argued against free trade on the basis that countries that are north/south are more likely to be culturally 'homogenous' than countries, like Canada, that are east/west.

"We built a country east and west and north. We built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States."

You are correct that Trudeau 'Sr' did not really have any answer to the lack of a national Canadian identity. Trudeau 'Sr' was a person who in today's parlance was an 'anywhere' (the so-called somewheres vs. the anywheres') and his solution was bilingualism so that Quebecers could be comfortable in the rest of Canada, and English speaking Canadians comfortable in Quebec. Of course, for 'somewheres' who have an attachment to their community, that was hardly a top concern.

However, the problem for a Canadian 'identity' is that British Columbians have more in common with Washingtonians than with Ontarians who similarly have more in common with Michiganders.  

Mind you, there is also the notion that the world (or at least the big cities in the world) are all becoming homogenized.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Yes I agree we have a weird thing with etymology in this country sometimes. You mentioned assimilation, and this is also another one of these 'bad words' in Canadian politics and culture. Assimilation as a voluntary process is a normal and perfectly healthy part of immigration. In some cases, the state might need to give a 'nudge' (i.e. teaching the official language to immigrants who may not speak it, etc). In the Canadian lexicon though, because we associate 'assimilation' with the forced cultural erasure of for example native people, we shy away from that word. Which is fine, I'm sympathetic to that, but not drawing a distinction between forced, unnatural assimilation and the natural process that immigrants go through is just incorrect.

I come back to the 'melting pot vs salad bowl' narrative, which has never really rung true to me, and as you mention it's not really what the Canadian public meant by multiculturalism. I'm defensive of the concept of multiculturalism because to a certain degree we can never not be multicultural. We're a New World country, and there are millions of people already living here who have strong cultural ties to other countries. This has always been the case, it's not something new. I think where we should draw the line is multicultural nationalism vs multicultural post-nationalism.

What I mean by multicultural nationalism is an acknowledgment of the multicultural nature of Canada, but the promotion of an overarching Canadian identity that takes precedence over all others. Hyphenated Canadians will always exist, and especially when we're talking about first-generation immigrants, it's naive to expect that somehow the culture that someone grew up within will just vanish the second they hop off the plane at YYZ. What's important is that those hyphenated Canadians become part of the same nation as anyone else, because the alternative is forming parallel societies, and that can't be good for Canada.

Maybe this is part of the problem? Even if you believe in an openly multicultural society, the mere word 'assimilation' shouldn't be a bad word.

Yes, our historical treatment of Indigenous peoples is reprehensible, but that does not change the fact that we are a country and need a sense of cultural continuity to continue existing. We need a word to express that - whether it's 'assimilation', or 'Canadianization' of immigrants, you simply cannot make something that 70% of Canadians support (voluntary assimilation of immigrants over time) a forbidden word.

I think so much of the issue with immigration in modern day political culture is that Justin Trudeau style liberals have made an almost forbidden topic. Canadian politicians feel like they can't even say that they want to cut immigration (until Poilievre recently did) and they can't say they want immigrants to Canadianize/assimilate/whatever term you prefer to use.

Regardless of what kind of government policy ones prefers on immigration/multiculturalism in Canada, the discussion itself needs to take place for policy to reflect what is best for Canadian society - if we can't talk about it, we let ideological radicals like Justin Trudeau take over the subject.

Additionally, while you're right that the word 'assimilation' has become stigmatized in Canadian politics, I don't think it's actually that stigmatized in mainstream Canadian culture - Canadians still widely use the term, especially increasingly nowadays when there is discontent with immigration, but politicians avoid it.

Fully agree with that. What I will say is, rather than rejecting it, we need to reclaim multiculturalism from the absolute perversion of the word that progressive politicians have made of it. Like you said, many young Canadians have internalized Justin Trudeau's version of post-national multiculturalism, where we have no sense of belonging other than the fact that we pay taxes to the same government. But people always want to belong to something greater than themselves, this is true across cultures and across time. So if it's not to the idea of Canadian nationhood, exactly what is it?

There are times when I think I genuinely understand Marxists more than modern-day liberals. I don't agree with their ideology at all, but at least when Marxists reject traditional notions of belonging (culture, religion, etc) they seek to replace it with class. 21st century liberals like Trudeau Jr (as opposed to 20th century liberals like Trudeau Sr) seem to have no answer to this.

You may be right, but I'm doubtful the extent to which this can happen in today's political culture. Poilievre has also mastered the art of pandering because he thinks this is how you win over immigrant and ethnic diaspora votes. Note, I actually don't think this is the best approach to win over ethnic diaspora voters - I think the best approach is treating them like regular citizens with their own concerns in their communities (maybe with some cultural peculiarities, but not significantly different than Canadians that aren't from recent immigrant backgrounds).

However, Poilievre's willingness to pander is evidence of how successfully Justin Trudeau has moved the overton window on this issue - JT wanted to create post-national state where ethnic diaspora identity politics is more important than Canadian national identity, and he tried to shift our politics in that direction. Poilievre (at least so far), seems willing to continue this trend, at least to some extent. What makes us think that if he gets elected he will 'reclaim' old-school Canadian multicultural nationalism?

Now it's my turn to ask you. What exactly has Poilievre done to pander to ethnic communities?

1. Well, for one thing, Pierre Poilievre's caucus suggested at some point they would scrap English language requirements for immigration (although quickly backtracked on that).

2. Demanding to halt the deportation of international students who were victims of a scam (this is a really strange one, because international students can't even vote, lol).

3. He pandered to a particular Muslim group with a history of promoting extremist speakers because they had common views on 'parental rights'.

4. As you mentioned, I think each of the parties spend a bit too much time fixating on the Middle East conflict, including the Conservatives and their support for Israel, to woo specific diasporas (in this case Jewish voters). Each party is obviously allowed to express their stance on that, but it gets way too much attention in Canadian politics compared to how pressing an issue it is.

I can provide more examples, but this is what comes to the top of my head.

[Upper Canada Tory]

There are times when I think I genuinely understand Marxists more than modern-day liberals. I don't agree with their ideology at all, but at least when Marxists reject traditional notions of belonging (culture, religion, etc) they seek to replace it with class. 21st century liberals like Trudeau Jr (as opposed to 20th century liberals like Trudeau Sr) seem to have no answer to this.

I have posted this here before. You could not be more wrong about Pierre Trudeau 'Sr.'

Pierre Trudeau especially hated ethnic nationalism:
Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We
should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let
alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are few policies potentially more
disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. There is no
such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What could be more absurd than the
concept of an “all-Canadian” boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is
one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average
citizen is one which breeds mediocrity. What the world should be seeking, and what
in Canada we must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but human
values: compassion, love, and understanding.

~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Remarks at the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress,
October 9, 1971.

And Pierre Trudeau on multiculturalism (whatever he may have meant by that.)
National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense must be
founded on confidence in one’s own individual identity; out of this can grow respect
for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes, and assumptions. A
vigorous policy of multiculturalism will create this initial confidence. It can form
the basis of a society which is founded on fair play for all.
~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in the House of Commons, October 8, 1971

Pierre Trudeau was a great believer in individual rights. And I think he would have realized this for the obvious contradiction it is:

conservative: Canadians should be free to do what they want (within the law)
Also conservative: immigrants must assimilate to Canadian culture/we need to enforce? a Canadian culture.

John Turner in the 1988 free trade debate also backed this up when he argued against free trade on the basis that countries that are north/south are more likely to be culturally 'homogenous' than countries, like Canada, that are east/west.

"We built a country east and west and north. We built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States."

You are correct that Trudeau 'Sr' did not really have any answer to the lack of a national Canadian identity. Trudeau 'Sr' was a person who in today's parlance was an 'anywhere' (the so-called somewheres vs. the anywheres') and his solution was bilingualism so that Quebecers could be comfortable in the rest of Canada, and English speaking Canadians comfortable in Quebec. Of course, for 'somewheres' who have an attachment to their community, that was hardly a top concern.

However, the problem for a Canadian 'identity' is that British Columbians have more in common with Washingtonians than with Ontarians who similarly have more in common with Michiganders.  

Mind you, there is also the notion that the world (or at least the big cities in the world) are all becoming homogenized.

Yes, but nobody here wants ethnic nationalism. People are ok with people preserving their diverse heritages, but also acknowledging that there is a national Canadian identity we are a part of.