Saturday, 30 August 2008

Canada's 'slave trade' is nurtured by the temporary worker program.

Here is an interesting albeit lengthy article in the Toronto Star.

Exploited workers Canada's 'slave trade'

Skilled Filipino workers packed into filthy house, denied pay, threatened with deportation
Aug 30, 2008 04:30 AM
Dale Brazao
Staff Reporter


What Canilang experienced last summer is an all too-common situation – foreign workers brought to Canada under false pretences and exploited. Federal officials call it the "modern-day slave trade" and warn of "People for Sale in Canada" in a poster campaign in 17 languages, distributed through Canadian missions around the globe.

At least 800 workers are trafficked into Canada yearly and another 1,000 or more pass through Canada and into the United States, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[...]

At the heart of the case of the Elmvale 11, as the men have been dubbed by Filipino consular staff, are immigration documents called Labour Market Opinions (LMO) issued by Service Canada.

These are Canadian gold cards for foreign workers. With an LMO, a foreign national can get a temporary permit to work in Canada. The company that wants the workers must first show Service Canada it made a reasonable – but unsuccessful – effort to hire or train Canadians for the job. LMOs stipulate the number of workers approved for the job. Copies are then sent to the workers, who apply for work permits upon arrival in Canada.

Since the federal government relaxed LMO rules two years ago, the program has expanded rapidly. In 2007, there were 201,057 temporary foreign workers in Canada, up from 162,046 in 2006 and 142,705 in 2005.

South of the border, the U.S. State Department recently called Canada "a destination for foreign victims trafficked for labour exploitation" and in an annual report recommended Canada "intensify efforts to investigate, prosecute and convict trafficking offenders."

An analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies once remarked that "there is nothing more permanent than a temporary worker" and this explains the mad rush for temporary worker applications: the people have no intention of leaving once the work is finished. Apparently there are over 200,000 temporary workers in Canada and as that number compounds over the years you can expect pressure to be applied by political and immigrant opportunists alike to pressure Ottawa and grant these people citizenship.

But the story shows how exploitable the temporary worker program is. An employer seeking cheap labour can simply fabricate efforts at finding and training domestic workers. And there is no shortage of those overseas willing to abandon everything to chase after fantasies of living and working in a wealthy nation like Canada. The very nature of the temporary worker program permits exploitation.

Amended in November 2005 to reflect the UN's definition of human trafficking, Canada's criminal code says it's a crime for anyone who "recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, or harbours a person" for the purpose of exploitation.

"The way exploitation is phrased in the criminal code, they have to fear for their safety or their lives," said RCMP Const. Julie Meeks, who conducted the initial investigation. In her opinion, Meeks said "they just didn't have that fear."

I disagree with the temporary worker program and so do the majority of Canadians. It is an attack on Canadian labour and an abuse of third world workers. Canada and Canadians first.

Is the "Juana Tejada Law" is a good thing?

A Filipina nanny (as if there is any other kind) developed terminal colon cancer while working in Canada. Her application for Canadian citizenship was denied becuase she was now considered medically inadmissible despite the fact that she was healthy when she initially arrived in the country. You can read the details here at the Toronto Star.

Dying nanny wants law change

Filipina caregiver, ill with cancer, granted residency after battle with federal government
Aug 26, 2008 04:30 AM
Deena Kamel
Staff Reporter


Juana Tejada, a Filipina nanny with terminal cancer who celebrated becoming a permanent resident yesterday, wants to make her dream of security in Canada a reality for other live-in caregivers.

A campaign led by unions and immigrant support groups is proposing a "Juana Tejada Law" – an amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would help guarantee the rights of medically inadmissible but otherwise qualified foreign caregivers living in Canada.

[...]

Tejada had her immigration application denied twice because, though healthy when she arrived, she developed cancer while working in Canada and was now deemed a burden on the health-care system. But after strong public support, she was recently cleared to apply for permanent residency.

[...]

Before arriving in Canada, live-in caregivers undergo stringent medical exams.

They must live with the same employer for 24 months out of three years, then undergo a second medical exam to apply for permanent residence. Tejada's supporters want to see that second exam requirement eliminated for caregivers.

I am not certain if I support this or not. I do feel for the woman but I am also concerned about the undue strain this will put on Canada's already financially strapped and overburdened health care system, a situation Canada's mass immigration system has contributed to and worsened.

I don't see why we allow nannies to apply for permanent residency anyways. What skills do they bring to Canada that Canada cannot supply itself? It seems many Filipinas will suffer the indignity of caring for someone else's children (a shame equally borne by the employer who can't bother himself and herself to raise their own damn kids) as an avenue to citizenship. But why should we let them become citizens? When their care giving job is over then what do they do? It seems to me they are just adding to the surplus labour force. We also allow it becuase they supply cheap and easy access to readily exploitable third world labour for Canada's middle class.

I can also see the law being extended to other apply to other temporary workers in Canada. This is just one complication an increasingly temporary and foreign born workforce is bringing to Canadian society.

Chinese immigrant asks, "Where have all the Canadians gone?"

The following is from the National Post.

Chinese stirring the melting pot: Most immigrants from Asia, says census
December 05, 2007, 8:00 AM by Shane Dingman


As an event planner in Hong Kong in the 1980s, Mimi Yeung spoke English for 10 hours every day. Then in 1987, she moved to Toronto. Today, enveloped in Toronto's huge Chinese community, she is frustrated to find that she is losing her English.

"I don't need to speak English!" says Ms. Yeung, who now works part-time as a publicist.

"My accountant, lawyer, driving instructor, doctor, dentist — everybody is Chinese.

"My English has gotten worse. I have no way of getting interaction with the mainstream."

Ironic isn't it? In Hong Kong this woman spoke English with greater frequency then she does now living in Toronto, a city in an English speaking country.

"Every time I take the subway or the streetcar, I always wonder, 'Where have all the real Canadians gone?' " says Ms. Yeung. "I see red people, black people, yellow people — all the ethnicities."

Even though Canadian commentators, journalists, politicians, and others out of touch with the majority of Canadians, go to great lengths to convince themselves and Canadians that a "Canadian is a Canadian" no matter where you were born, when you arrived here, or from where, it seems deep down we all know better than that. And the question this Chinese immigrant mulls in her head as she travels on Toronto's public transit system says a lot.

Were I or any other Canadian to ask the same question she did then I would be dismissed as a racist or a xenophobe but when an immigrant asks that question then it is taken as a matter of fact, clear to the most casual of observers.

Her question is quite telling. For one, it implies that there is a clear distinction between who and who is not a "real" Canadian, that being a Canadian is something more than being a Canadian citizen. And secondly, those "real" Canadians are disappearing, at least they are on Canadian city streets. What she is observing is population replacement. Immigrants are outnumbering and displacing Canadians in their own country at an alarming rate that is best described as colonialism. Because of mass immigration Canadians are being made to feel like strangers in their own country as immigrants transform Canadian public spaces into reflections of their homelands, erasing Canadian history and culture from that space forever. To be blunt, Canadians are losing their country.

What is also telling is that mass immigration undermines attempts to fully integrate immigrants. This woman from Hong Kong can function in this country without having to speak a word of English, or French for that matter, a phenomenon repeated across the land many times over. How can we seriously consider someone a Canadian if they cannot speak English or French (indigenous languages notwithstanding)? This is not nation building. It is colonialism!

Here are some facts provided by the article:

...Statistics Canada shows that close to half of the five-million people in the Toronto census metropolitan area, or 2.3-million people, were born outside of Canada.

The biggest chunk, 1.3-million, come from Asia, including 190,000 from mainland China and another 103,000 from Hong Kong, plus 62,000 from what Statistics Canada calls "other East Asia." About 3% of Canadians now list Chinese as their mother tongue, behind French (22%) and English (58%).

Saturday, 23 August 2008

Increases in immigration rates and increases in crime rates: Is there a connection?

A clear connection between Canada's mass immigration policy and increases in crime rates is difficult to verify. For starters I don't think a study exists that makes that connection and I doubt one ever will given the sensitive nature of the issue. Also, it would unfairly group law abiding immigrants with imported criminal elements but it is worth the investigation becuase it affects Canadian and immigrant alike. Given the string of news articles that have been published of late regarding crime statistics I think that one can successfully argue that mass immigration has not made Canadian streets safer but more dangerous and crime prone than they otherwise would be.

Let's look at Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Toronto has become an immigrant city. Almost half of its residents were not born in the city and in time Toronto will become immigrant majority. Also, Toronto will become "minority majority" where racial minority groups will collectively outnumber the white host majority.

The Toronto Star likes to remind us that Toronto is a safe place to live in and one way it does this is by telling us that crime stats are down for that city. There are problems with this of course. Crime stats may be down but this may be the result of residents failing to report crimes. In other words crime has not decreased only the reporting of it. But let's say crime has in fact decreased. This is a relative statement. Crime has decreased in relation to what time? Last year? Two years ago? Three years ago? A decade ago? Crime may have decreased in Toronto by say 2% over the last two years but it may be up 1000% over five years. In other words crime has actually increased over five years and this is what this Toronto Star article is arguing.

Decline in violent crime? Stats tell a different story

Crimes unknown just four decades ago now leave thousands of victims in their wake
Jul 29, 2008 04:30 AM

John Muise


Crack dealers with guns ... carjackings ... home invasions ... drive-by shootings. This is Canada's new vocabulary of crime. Crimes that were unheard of just 30 years ago.

[...]

The day before the Star launched its series, Statistics Canada released its annual report on crime. The Star dutifully reported that crime is down. But is it really? The Star threw out a lot of numbers. So let's take a closer look at some of the long-term numbers.

In 1962, 221 out of every 100,000 Canadians were reported to police as victims of violent crime. By 1992, that number had skyrocketed to 1,082. Yes, by 2007 it had dropped to 930. But over the course of the last four decades, violent crime in this country has not declined. In fact, the increase has been profound.

If reported violent crime peaked in 1992, what has happened since then? Here are some relevant statistics: In addition to collecting crime stats, the federal government also did victimization surveys in 1988, '93, '99 and 2004. These surveys show that back in 1993, 42 per cent of Canadians reported their victimization to police. In 1999, 37 per cent reported. And by 2004, just 34 per cent reported to police. This is a statistically significant drop.

Has violent crime really dropped in recent years? Or is it that more Canadians are not reporting these crimes?

I don't believe that violent crime is down
. Consider these numbers, also from Statistics Canada:

Assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon – up 32 per cent since 1998.

Aggravated assault – up 18 per cent over the same period. These are some of the worst assaults in the criminal code. And there were almost 60,000 reported to police in 2007. Those numbers are not insignificant.

The above was written by a Toronto police detective and I am more prone to take his word for it than some privileged white middle-class Toronto Star reporter whose only experience with "the streets" is driving through Jane and Finch on the way to the cottage to bypass backed up traffic on the northbound 400.

Staying with the Toronto area let's look at Peel region. This is a border region west of Toronto that includes the cities of Mississauga and Brampton, two cities that are also experiencing fundamental demographic changes becuase of mass immigration and the spill over effect as Toronto becomes over crowded.

This Toronto Star article is insightful.

Peel grapples with youth violence

Region scrambles for solutions to rising gang activity and record number of homicides
Dan Robson
Staff Reporter


The words jump from a mound of flowers and cards piled by the red brick wall where Alex Masih was slain. The 16-year-old became Peel Region's 17th homicide victim of the year on Aug. 9 when he was gunned down next to this modest townhouse complex near Kennedy Rd. and Williams Parkway, in the heart of Brampton.

A week later Farhan Ali Omar, 22, was stabbed to death in Mississauga, bringing the homicide total to 18, and setting a record for the amount of murders in Peel in a single year. With more than four months to go, the numbers will likely continue to climb in the rapidly expanding suburbs west of Toronto.

But Masih was not just another number for the record books.

He was barely old enough to drive when his life was taken and it's this youthful age demographic that has community leaders in Peel particularly concerned about rising incidents of violent crime in the region.

[...]

Increased gang activity in Peel is a trend that police in the region want to curb, before it leads to the type of downward spiral into urban decay that has plagued many North American cities.

In 2003, there were 39 known gangs in Peel. As of last year that number had jumped to 108, said Const. Dirk Niles of the Intelligence Services Gang Unit.

The number of gang members and associates has almost doubled in that period, from just over 800 to well over 1,500 in Brampton and Mississauga today, said Niles, adding that the increase is partially due to improved efforts in tracking gang activity in the region.


Turning our attention to the nation's capitol here is a telling report published in the Ottawa Citizen.

City street gangs contain multitude of ethnicities

More than half of membership foreign-born
Andrew Seymour, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, July 31, 2008


More than half of Ottawa's 600 confirmed street gang members were born outside of Canada, according to Ottawa police intelligence.

In a report published in the RCMP Gazette magazine, Ottawa police Staff Sgt. Mike Callaghan of the guns and gang section said that 314 of the city's 600 confirmed gang members were born outside the country.

And the membership of Ottawa's two "predominant" gangs -- the West Side Bloods and the Ledbury Banff Crips -- is made up of 57 different nationalities
, according to the report.


According to this Vancouver Sun report Vietnamese gangs control most of British Columbia's pot trade.

In 1997, five per cent of marijuana growing suspects identified in Vancouver were of Vietnamese origin, the study found.

By 2000, they made up 87 per cent of all suspects.

[...]

Sgt. Gord Friesen, head of the Surrey RCMP drug section, said about 90 per cent of the suspects arrested for marijuana growing in his city now are Vietnamese.

Asian gangs also play a significant role in the drug trade in Ontario even bringing it to Ontario's cottage country as revealed here in an Ottawa Citizen report.

"Twenty-one people went into the bush from every ethnic group, working together to steal someone else's grow," said Det. Sgt. Steinke. "They were armed and wore bulletproof vests." Police initially intercepted a dozen of the thieves and caught the rest of them throughout the evening.

What is interesting to learn is the rise in crime rates in smaller Canadian cities as can be read here in the Toronto Star.

Drugs, guns and violent crime charges, traditionally considered the scourge of the big city, are seeping steadily into small-town Ontario, where the number of serious criminal charges is outpacing even major urban centres, an analysis by The Canadian Press has found.

Violent crime charges – everything from criminal harassment and assault to robbery and murder – have largely stagnated in Ontario's major cities, but the opposite appears to be the case in the less populated centres, where the number of serious charges laid between 2000 and 2007 spiked last year by nearly 25 per cent.


However we also learn that many immigrants are moving into the Suburbs.

And so have street gangs.

I do not wish to paint Toronto as an unsafe city to live in. It is still a safe place to live. But one of the reasons many immigrate to Canada in the first place is the relative safety we live in but it seems immigration may undermine that safety. Many criminal elements get into the country as bogus refugees or overstaying a work permit or visitor's visa and are able to stay becuase Canada consistently fails to adequately monitor who it allows into the country.

Also, though most immigrants do not come to Canada with criminal intentions they end up creating the social conditions in which crime is nurtured in. The prime ingredient is poverty. Poverty rates in Canadian cities are worse than they should be because of the mass importation of individuals who are ill equipped to succeed economically in this country.

As Canada experiences almost unprecedented numbers of immigrant arrivals it is also courting increasing crime rates. Is there a connection? I think there is and it has to do with mass immigration not immigration. We have lost control of our borders and because of this many criminals can slip in quite easily. Equally pertinent is that Canada is importing more people than it can economically absorb forcing many to take "survival jobs" just to get by. It is by no coincidence that Toronto's "poverty by postal code" shows that it is mostly immigrant communities that are stricken by this social disease. It is easy to blame this on systemic discrimination but by doing so we avoid to real cause of the problem: that Canada accepts too many immigrants.

The solution is easy to implement. First, we need to reduce immigration targets. The amount of immigrants Canada accepts cannot solve the demographic and labour issues the country is facing. Second, we need to be more selective. No more sponsored relatives and do away with the outdated and arbitrary points system. Third, refugees should be determined overseas and not be allowed to make asylum claims on Canadian soil. They should be forced to make their claims at the first safe country of passage. We need to put the needs of Canada and Canadians first. This is our country after all.

Friday, 15 August 2008

James Bissett and "Toward a Canada First Immigration Policy".

Here is a worthwhile read care of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. You can download the pdf file here.

Here are some highlights.

It may surprise Canadians to learn that, in fact, Canada has no comprehensive immigration policy. Instead, we have a patchwork of policies that have been developed in isolation from one another, each intended to addresses a specific issue, but none of which were designed to be part of a coherent whole. As a result, despite the many rules and procedures governing immigration and the existence of a large bureaucracy to enforce those rules and procedures, Canada has lost control over immigration.

Each year the number of immigrants that we admit under various categories
equals a little less than 1% of Canada’s total population. This is a staggeringly
high number
. To illustrate just how high, consider that the United States admits
a number equaling about 0.4% of its total population annually while Australia
admits a slightly higher percentage at 0 .44%.

As a point of interest, Australia is the only industrialized country that has a foreign born population higher than Canada's. Where Australia has a foreign born population of 22%, Canada has a foreign born population close to 20% but it is only a matter of time before Canada has the largest foreign born population in the whole of the industrialized world, that is if we continue with the current immigration system.

‘Ghetto-ization’ of immigrant communities is hardly a new phenomenon. Earlier generations of immigrants also tended to congregate with one another in the same neighbourhood. What is different today is that some newcomers can and do actually transplant their home countries here in Canada. Children are being effectively cut-off from broader Canadian society, making the medium and perhaps even the long term prospect of successful integration much less certain. Strategies to encourage integration and assist in the process have not kept up with these changes.

[...]

The percentage of migrants who come to Canada because of their education, training or occupation is only approximately 25%. The rest are either relatives of these or previous immigrants, or they are refugees or other humanitarian cases. These latter immigrants do not have to meet any selection criteria other than to comply with health and criminal/security standards. Many are parents and grandparents of successful applicants.

This is the major reason immigrants over the past twenty years, and to this day, continue to do poorly than post war cohorts. They do not meet Canada's needs and got into the country only because a relative sponsored them or they entered as a refugee. Also, due to the sponsoring of aged relatives, this is why the average age of immigrants has been increasing over the years and why immigration is actually adding to Canada's aging population instead of alleviating it. This is also why immigration threatens the solvency of Canada's cherished public health care system.

Canada is the only country that allows any person who arrives to claim asylum, including not only those who are traveling through safe countries, but actual residents, and even citizens, of safe countries such as the United States, Germany or England. This practice undermines efforts on the part of the United Nations and other international bodies to provide assistance to legitimate refugees. It encourages aspiring immigrants to bypass the system and facilitates the activities of criminal gangs engaged in human trafficking.

[...]

It is widely believed that Canada needs more immigrants to counterbalance our aging problem, that a larger population through immigration will guarantee economic prosperity, or that we face dire labour force shortages that must be met by more immigration. The fact is that none of these statements can be backed up by evidence. No credible demographer believes the aging issue can be solved through immigration. In fact, as noted above, current immigration practices may be compounding the problems associated with an aging population. Economists may argue among themselves whether or not immigration is good or bad for the economy, but none argue that its impact either way is significant. On the question of addressing Canada’s labour needs, no serious study has ever concluded that increased immigration of selected skilled workers is the best way of resolving labour shortages.

I recommend you download the pdf and save it for future reference. I am glad people like James Bissett are doing what they do becuase the myths that are continuously circulated ad nauseum actually hold no water under scrutiny and need to be exposed.

White Americans to be a minority by 2042, possibly sooner. White Canadians to be a minority by...? Is this what we really want?

Read it here.

White Americans no longer a majority by 2042

By Stephen Ohlemacher
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON - White people will no longer make up a majority of Americans by 2042, according to new government projections. That's eight years sooner than previous estimates, made in 2004.

The U.S. has been growing more diverse for decades, but the process has sped up through immigration and higher birth rates among minority residents, especially Hispanics.

It is also growing older.

"The white population is older and very much centered around the aging baby boomers who are well past their high fertility years," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "The future of America is epitomized by the young people today. They are basically the melting pot we are going to see in the future."

Is this the right course for the United States? Do white Americans feel comfortable with becoming minorities in their county? How will this affect American society? Will it destabilize it? Will it pacify the American military juggernaut and the foreign policy that guides it? Perhaps noting will happen at all and it will be politics as usual.

What should be noted here is that it is uncontrolled immigration that is changing American society. The United States, like Canada, has lost control of its borders and the evidence for this is clear. Black Americans used to be the second largest racial group in the United States. Now they are third being surpassed by non-white Hispanics due in large part to illegal immigration from South America, predominately Mexico exporting it's surplus population to the U.S. In Canada, Black Canadians (not to be confused with African-Canadians) and First Nations Peoples were the second and third largest racial groups. Both are now surpassed by Asians and South Asians because of mass immigration.

Canada, in fact most white majority societies, is becoming a white minority society. Canada, as is the United Kingdom, is becoming more Asian whereas the Untied States is becoming more Hispanic. Whites are on the fast track to becoming minorities in countries where they once constituted the majority. Is this a good thing? Do the white majorities in these countries have no say in the demographic changes that are occurring in their countries? Whites are already a minority in the global village. Is it reasonable to render them minorities in every country in the world? Is it unreasonable to allow whites in countries where they are the majority to shape society where they stay the majority?

Immigration is not only about nation building and populating vacant lands. It is also about population replacement. The European component of North America is being replaced by Hispanics in the United States and Asians in Canada due largely to mass immigration. A public discussion is needed to address this issue. Do we really want this to happen? I, for one, am opposed to an immigration policy that is more akin to neo-colonialism than it is with nation building and this is the immigration system Canada currently has. Because of mass immigration Toronto and Vancouver are increasingly becoming less recognizable as culturally Canadian cities and more so as immigrant, mostly Asian, cities. To be more blunt Toronto and Vancouver are becoming Asian cities on Canadian soil. Within a generation Toronto went from majority white/Canadian born to minority white/foreign born. How is this a good thing and why should we continue to allow this unchallenged?

Canadian demography is being altered in ways many Canadian are uncomfortable with and disapprove of yet they have no means to voice their opinion. It is time for a national discussion on the effects mass immigration is having on Canadian society and its demographic future.

The demographic future Canada and the United States face is not inevitable. We can change it but we must speak up.

Tuesday, 5 August 2008

The joys of multiculturalism and the inferiority of women. Evidence of gender preference in abortion stats for Asian and South Asian communities.

If actions speak louder than words then it appears the Asian and South Asian communities posses a cultural penchant for aborting their females. The following says it all. I pulled the first part from a Canadian Centre for Policy Studies paper called Why Canada Needs an Abortion Policy. You can read the pdf file here.

The controversy stirred up by these newspaper ads may have deterred any further public promotion of gender-selection abortions, but recent statistics seem to indicate that the practice remains widespread in some communities nonetheless. In an article published in Western Standard in June 2006, Andrea Mrozek, Director of Research at the Institute for Marriage and Family in Ottawa, points out that there were 11 percent more male children born in Surrey BC than female in the year 2000, and 9 percent more in 2003, almost twice the national average. Surrey’s population is nearly one third immigrant, with about one third of these new Canadians originating in India, where illegal gender-selection abortions are an acknowledged problem.

There’s more.

In Coquitlam BC, where Chinese immigrants make up 12 per cent of the population, there were 16 percent more boys born in 2000 than girls. In 2001 the number was 9 percent and in 2003 it was 12 percent. In Richmond BC the difference was 11 percent in 2000 and 12 percent in 2003. In the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), north Etobicoke, where a large part of the population is made up of Indian immigrants, the male-to-female ratio for children under the age of 4 was 1.1:1 in 2001 while in Sikh areas of Brampton the ratio was 1.09:1 and in Toronto’s eastern Chinatown it was 1.08:1. There is no credible explanation for these differences other than the ongoing practice of gender-selection abortions in certain communities.

And here's news out of the United Kingdom.

In certain Asian cultures, sons are more highly prized than daughters because it is believed they will work from a younger age and carry on the family name.

In India, girls are considered an economic burden as their parents traditionally need to provide a dowry payment for them when they get married - often resulting in financial ruin or extreme hardship for many families when the women marry.

Last year, research revealed that between 1990 and 2005, about 1,500 fewer girls were born to Indian mothers living in England and Wales than would have been statistically probable for this group.

In the Nineties, 112 boys were born for every 100 girls. Between 2000 and 2005 this rose to 114 boys for every 100 girls.

A report last year revealed Indian women in Britain are travelling to the subcontinent to use the services of IVF doctors who for 4,000 rupees (about £49), will reveal the sex of an unborn child and recommend someone who can terminate the pregnancy
.

And the following if from a Michal Coren piece you can read here and I blogged about here.

Okay, they didn't exactly word it in that way and they may have shot themselves in the foot, but their story last week was extraordinarily revealing. They revealed that advertisements in two Canadian Punjabi newspapers were promoting ultrasound clinics in the United States where, "You are told the sex (of the baby) immediately."

The implication of this, the story continued, was that "female fetuses" would be aborted
. The article then quoted a community activist who said that this was "really, really sad."

These stats are not surprising. India's and China's cultural preference for males have created a gender imbalance for both of those nations. You can read more about it here. It is quite apparent that both of those communities have brought that same preference to Canada and that the practice of aborting their females is increasing in frequency.

The main problem is that this is not agreeable with Canadian values. The aborting females part I mean. It's totally in line with Canadian values when it comes to killing defenseless children still in the womb, at tax payer expense of course, because we are a civilized and progressive nation. But the fact that it is primarily females that are being targeted for termination suggests that females are seen as persons of lesser value within these communities and this is at odds with Canadian values.

Another problem is that this practice is a disservice for the fertility rate of this nation. This is pertinent when immigration is seen as the messiah for Canada's aging population. India and China are the top two source countries of immigrants to Canada respectively but if more males are being born within these communities than females then this does not help the fertility rate, and in effect the long term birth rate, of this country. In other words these communities do not help combat Canada's aging population. This is compounded when these communities also import their aged relatives almost negating any benefit of their have children in the first place.

If Canada is a true multicultural society then the preference for terminating female fetuses within some cultures should not be disconcerting. After all, male preference is apart of their culture so who are we to judge? Others may say that education is all that is needed to help these people see the errors of their ways but cultural relativism prevents that. True multiculturalism compels us to accept the termination of female fetuses within certain cultures whether we like it or not and if not then to shut up about it. My position on multiculturalism is clear: get rid of it. And if certain cultural practices are disagreeable with us then don't let it in. It's that simple. Assimilate and integrate. If some cultural practices are incompatible with Canadian society then we shouldn't be encouraging their importation.

Just want to give a hat tip to five feet of fury. I poached most of the links above from that blog.

Monday, 4 August 2008

The pitfalls of ethnic vote pandering. Attempt by Stephen Harper to placate Indo-Canadian voters backfires.

Stephen Harper has been busy of late apologizing for anything to curry favour with ethnic and minority voters. His latest stunt occurred in British Columbia where he made an unwarranted apology to the Indo-Canadian community, primarily Sikh voters, for an incident that happened almost a century ago. Read about it here at the Toronto Star.

PM apologizes for 1914 ship tragedy

Sikh audience rejects Komagata Maru gesture, wants Commons action
Aug 04, 2008 04:30 AM
The Canadian Press


SURREY, B.C.–Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized yesterday for the 1914 Komagata Maru incident in which hundreds of people from India seeking a better life in Canada were turned away.

Harper was speaking to a crowd of about 8,000 people in Surrey, B.C., which has a large Indian community.

But as soon as the Prime Minister left the stage, members of the Sikh community rushed to the podium and immediately denounced the apology, saying they wanted it delivered on the floor of the House of Commons.

Is there no pleasing these people? It seems the apology isn't good enough for them. They want it said in the House of Commons. Who do these people think they are?

Many of those aboard the Komagata Maru were Sikhs. Following Harper's speech, Sikh community leaders asked the crowd for a show of hands on whether to accept the apology. Then they announced that the gathering had rejected it.

"The apology has been given and it won't be repeated," said Jason Kenney, minister of state for multiculturalism
, who was accompanying Harper during the visit.


For starters I just love the headline. So the Komagata Maru incident is a "tragedy" all of a sudden. Who wrote this piece?

Also the apology for the Komagata Maru incident is unwarranted just like an apology for the Chinese Head Tax is unwarranted as well. Taken out of historical context these events seem racist but at the time the acting government of Canada did the right thing becuase it was in the best interests of Canadians living in British Columbia. Immigration Watch Canada has written about it. You can read one article about the Chinese Head Tax here and about the Komagata Maru here. But put simply the livelihoods of Canadians were threatened by an encroaching influx of Asian immigrants into the young province. These immigrants also threatened to disrupt the ethnic and cultural balance of the region. For the social good and for the benefit of Canadians the government restricted the inflow of Asian immigrants into the province because it was in the best interest of Canadians. We should never lose sight of the historical context. This is especially true in a time when history is being rewritten, or portions of it ignored, to castigate Canadians as racists, yet again, to further compel us to hold our tongues when it comes to criticizing immigration policy and demanding that it serve the interest of Canadians first and not primarily non citizens living in foreign lands which is how it is today.

But I hope Stephen Harper learned his lesson. The ethnic vote cannot be so easily bought and their demands can be incessant. He should also come to understand that even though the apologies are nice gestures the ethnic vote almost always goes Liberal. If Stephen Harper wants to effect voting patterns he might want to reduce Canada's immigrant intake. If he doesn't he'll just keep bringing in wave after wave of Liberal party supporters and soon enough a Conservative wouldn't be able to get arrested in Ottawa.

Ironically in an attempt to steal away Liberal Party votes he may have inadvertently helped them this time around if he doesn't give them what they want: an apology made in the House of Commons. The apology won't be repeated says Jason Kenney. We'll see.

Saturday, 2 August 2008

Another HIV infected African immigrant concealed his status from his multiple partners.

Fortunately for them they didn't contract the disease. Read it here.

HIV man sentenced to seven years
Tendai Mazambani, 34, didn't reveal to his eight sexual partners that he was HIV positive
By KRISTA SEGGEWISS
The London Free Press


Tendai Mazambani had sex with eight women without revealing he was HIV positive.

The 34-year-old London man was sentenced to seven years in prison yesterday by Superior Court Justice Johanne Morissette for eight counts of aggravated sexual assault.

"The most important mitigating factor is that miraculously, none of your victims have tested positive," Morissette said.

[...]

Born in Zimbabwe, Mazambani came to Toronto in 2001 as a political refugee with his wife. After having difficulty starting a family, Mazambani took his spouse to a Toronto hospital where they discovered she was HIV positive.

Mazambani also tested positive and was advised by a doctor about his responsibilities as a person with HIV.

Why weren't these people tested before they were allowed into the country? Why wasn't it 'til after they landed in Canada that they discovered they were HIV positive? Africa is a hotbed for the AIDS virus, an epidemic that can easily be explained if Tendai Mazambani and Clato Mabior's behaviour is any indication of Africa's culture or promiscuity. Why is Canada so nonchalant with testing African immigrants for HIV and AIDS? Are we so keen to import Africa's AIDS epidemic here?

Something tells me gay activism is partially to blame for Canada's lackadaisical approach to screening out HIV positive immigrants. It may also be because these people are "refugees", a label that should be taken with a grain of salt nowadays. It seems the safety of these individuals is more important than the health risks they pose for the Canadian public at large and the potential drain on health care resources they may inflict, further bankrupting Canada's much cherished health care system one HIV positive immigrant at a time.

I don't see the logic in granting asylum to individuals harbouring infectious and incurable diseases like HIV or Tuberculosis. I don't see the logic in letting them into the country at all. They should be denied entry period! For the sake of one the health of many more are placed at a potential risk and where is the common sense or the compassion in that?

See also:
Putting the health of Canadians at risk: rise in HIV cases in Canada due largely to immigration.