Wednesday, 26 October 2011

The Vast Majority Of Mexico Is Safer Than Toronto!? Say Whaaaaat!!!???

Who knew? But I guess if you lived there like these ex-pat Canadians do then you'd know that.

Mexico was, at one time, Canada's top source country for refugee claims. Using 2010 figures it has now fallen to fourth place behind Hungary, China and Colombia, and just ahead of the Island Of Bullshitters and Their Bullshit Asylum Claims.

The fall was because the government slapped Mexico with visa restrictions to deal with what it regarded were a steady steam of bogus asylum claims coming out of the country, some claims being Mexican newly-weds honeymooning in Canada on our dime. Only 10% of asylum claims made by Mexican nationals are ever accepted. The rest are either rejected or abandoned.

Since much of the news out of Mexico concerns itself with the violence of the country's drug wars to hear someone say that Mexico is, for the most part, about as safe as Toronto may come as a shock. But to those who actually live there they seem quite happy to set the record straight for you.

This cuts to the heart of the problem of allowing inland refugee claims and the establishment of a legal apparatus to entertain them. Those hearing asylum claims and deciding on their validity here in Canada are too far removed from the countries producing the asylum claims to make a qualified decision since they have little context to work with. They know so little about those nations and may even be hard pressed to find them on a map. Operating in a bubble of near ignorance their opinion of a foreign country may be solely shaped by what they read in the news. This systemic ignorance is a major reason why Canada's asylum system is rife with abuse.

This is why the bulk of Canada's refugee claims should be assessed abroad by people possessed of a knowledge of the country they are working in and an understanding of its people and culture. Right now Immigration and Refugee Board judges are, for the most part, appointees for which the only qualification you need is to be well acquainted with the right people. If I'm not mistaken Queen Mila Mulroney, wife to King Brian the Buffoon, once appointed her hairdresser to the IRB. How's that for quality? One former IRB judge let his politics decide his cases for him. Essentially, Canada's refugee system and the IRB are inefficient mechanisms to deal with asylum claims. But when sinecure, six figure salary civil service jobs are at stake don't expect any change to happen any time soon.

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

It Looks Like We Didn't Need immigrants To Fund The CPP Afterall.

One of the government's selling points to a weary Canadian public for upping immigration intake numbers beyond reason is that immigrants are needed to fund the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP). It is argued that retiring "baby boomers" will put a lot of stress on the CPP's resources testing its solvency. Therefore we need to import many immigrants in increasing numbers to work and provide the taxes needed to keep the CPP afloat.

It turns out the CPP is doing fine. So good in fact that there will be enough money in the fund to pay out CPP benefits for at least the next 75 years! This news should be taken along with a recent poll that found close to 70% of people polled planned to keep working in some fashion post-retirement.

It appears the argument suggesting that without immigration the CPP will become underfunded is just a scare tactic to compel Canadians to embrace an immigration system they otherwise have grave issues with and works against their interests.

We know that any positive effects mass immigration has on an ageing Canadian society are negligible at best; we know that mass immigration does not create jobs for Canadians; we know that mass immigration inadequately addresses skills shortages; we know that immigrants eat up more taxes than they produce as a group; and now we know that immigrants are not needed to support the CPP.

So can some please tell me exactly why we need to import record numbers of immigrants into Canada each and every year? Seriously! If I am supposed to surrender my country to succeeding waves of de facto colonizers then at least give me a legitimate reason why I should embrace this unwanted fate.

Sunday, 23 October 2011

TFWs: Doing Work Canadians Want To Do.

Know how we Canadians are incessantly told that immigrants do jobs Canadians don't want to do [at that pay mind you but they always stop the sentence short and I should add they are jobs immigrants don't want to do either (nor their Canadian born children) but will do until their permanent residency is assured)? Well, it turns out immigrants are doing jobs Canadians want to do after all.

I should be more accurate. They are temporary foreign workers (TFWs) to be precise, not immigrants per se, but as anyone in the immigration field will tell you there is noting more permanent than a temporary foreign worker.

I've been reading the comments to the article and it appears the story is a little more complicated than the reporter in the Edmonton Sun makes it out to be. I recommend you read the comments as well and if you do see if you can spot the company shill providing spin to the issue.

What appears clear to me is that this is yet another example of the business community using the immigration system to bust unions and drive down incomes, and consequently living standards, of Canadians.

One of the comments argues that the labour shortage in places like the Alberta tar sands is manufactured by purposely offering low wages and no benefits to drive away any domestic interest so that companies will have little option but to import TFWs. I think this is right on the mark. At the right pay coupled with other incentives you can easily attract the labour you desire but there seems to be no interest in doing this. There is also the option to train and retain employees but there is no interest in doing this either which appears to be especially true with the construction industry. If there is a labour shortage in this country Canadian businesses share some of the blame.

The issues here are thus. One is the use of foreigners - Filipinos and Portuguese in this case - to attack the living standards of Canadians by driving down incomes and eliminating benefits. This redistributes wealth upwards and into concentrated hands which in turn exacerbates the growing income divide. This should be a concern because concentrated wealth is harmful to the health of the economy. The second issue is private companies - private citizens - selecting who gets to immigrate to Canada. Immigration is largely a federal issue because it affects Canadian sovereignty and I don't believe unaccountable, private citizens should decide who gets to settle here. The third issue is the misnamed temporary foreign worker. There is no such thing as a temporary foreign worker since too many of them never leave even after their visa expires which leads to the last issue. This has to do with the business practice of externalizing costs which means dumping the cost of doing business onto someone else. In this case, private companies offer unattractive pay packages to discourage domestic interest so that they can pursue the cheaper imported foreigner option. They can recapture the costs of importing them by paying them less (which means less taxes being sent to Ottawa than a Canadian worker would send), offering little to no benefits, and then disposing of them once they have maximized their investment in them. The business then dumps the cost of the TFW onto the Canadian taxpayer because now in Canada the TFW does not always leave the country on his or her own volition once their visa expires. Along with the cost to the government of having to track them down to deport them the now illegal immigrant needs to meet his or her basic necessities which will necessitate a source of income of sorts. These are costs to Canadians in some way or another. The now illegal may make a refugee claim to extend his or her stay which means even more costs to Canadians. To the business community TFWs means profits. To the rest of us TFWs just aren't worth it.

When foreign workers were invading Canadian territory and negatively affecting the incomes of Canadian citizens, and jeopardizing their financial well being, the government did something about it to protect the interests of the citizens who elected it. It installed a head tax. Now it chaperones foreign workers into the Canadian labour market with no regard to how this affects Canadian incomes and Canadian society.

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

Sweden Hates Itself, Wants To Commit Suicide.

Looks to Canada for ideas on to end it all.

As usual the real story is in the comments.

Saturday, 15 October 2011

Pick One: Multiculturalism Or Preserving Canadian History Because You Cannot Have Both.

Looks like Muslims are causing communal tension again this time with the residents of Markham, Ontario. The issue is over the approved construction of a 28,000-sq. ft. Mosque to be built on Markham's 16th avenue just east of St. Brother Andre Catholic School.

Opponents charge the Mosque will cause disruptive traffic congestion along with potential parking and traffic overflow issues. But the main concern, it appears, is the the Mosque will disrupt the historic atmosphere of Markham's town core. This is a real concern after all since, according to the report, Markham town council rejected the construction of a Taoist temple for that reason ruling it "out of character with the community" as if a 28,000-sq. ft. Mosque isn't. So as it is with Christianity it's Taoism out, Mohammed in.

Responding to the rejection of the design of the Taoist temple one of the architects stated that the project was "oriented to Steeles Avenue" and that "Steeles Avenue is a neighbourhood in transition" implying concerns over aesthetic compatibility with Markham's historic town core setting are nonsense. So here lies the conflict: you have two group - Taoists and Muslims - who want to effect cultural change on an apparent unreceptive townspeople who find value in preserving the historic character of the neighbourhood in which they live. Who's side should prevail?

It's not like the Taoists and Muslims do not have options. Facing negative public reaction they could do the neighbourly thing and move their projects elsewhere in town. This will be an act of mutual accommodation the residents of Markham may find endearing and consequently build good interfaith and cross-cultural relations. Of course this is not what happened.

When it comes to issues like this I have come to expect the introduced faiths and cultures to Canadian society to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to build good relations with their Canadian neighbours. Prompted with a multiculti fuelled raging sense of entitlement the Taoists expect to build where they want to irrespective of the concerns of their neighbours and the hopes of the town council that they would build elsewhere. As for Muslims, with Allah on their side and doing His work they just do not give a damn as long as they get what they want even in the face of a petition wanting them to build elsewhere. We Canadians should be familiar with this by now: we accommodate them, they do not accommodate us.

The Taoists refuse to budge on point of principal. "If we are out of sight, we are out of mind," stated a spokesperson in the report which seems to suggest they want to shove their culture in as many faces as possible even if we are all content with ourselves by ignoring it.

For the Muslims I think the issue is the same but one better: it is also about conquest. The Mosque is not being built in any part of Markham. It is being built in it's historic town core. This is symbolic for several reasons.

One is it is a stamp of Islamic permanence by co-opting an historic setting. This suggests that Islam is now apart of local history ignoring the fact Islam had nothing to do with the establishment and development of the town itself. But this does not really matter in the long-term. What really matters now is that Islam can affect any future cultural direction the town makes which we can reasonably suppose will be done out of self interest.

This leads to the second reason: the appropriation of an historic setting implies that Markham's future, or at least a part of it, belongs to Islam; that pre-Islamic Markham is a thing of the past to be forgotten and possibly destroyed. The disconnect between a newly built Mosque designed to bring attention to itself and its pre-Islamic setting is making that statement. I do not think the choice to design the Mosque to reference the Taj Mahal in India is purely for aesthetic reasons. The Taj Mahal is one of Islam's grandest symbols of Islamic permanence in a region where Islam didn't exist before. It also harkens to the days of Muslim conquest in south Asia.

For any of this to be possible Markham's residents must allow the surrender and slow death of any semblance to the town's history. Muslims and Taosits (amongst others) cannot preserve their culture and history on Canadian soil alongside Canadian culture and history. Someone has to give and time and time again it is us Canadians doing the accommodating. This is at great cost to us because a people estranged from their history have no sense of self in the present and is lost to the future.

One last thing. The rejection of the Taoist temple was criticized as a case of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) in the linked article above by a proponent and I think this generally describes Canadian attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism and why it is mistakenly perceived as being a "success" in this country as nations the world over are rejecting it. Canadians are typically warmer to mass immigration and multiculturalism so long as they do not have to see it. If they have places to go to escape it then they do it. That is why in Toronto there are white majority neighbourhoods almost free of any evidence of immigration and multiculturalism. And that is how the white residents in these neighbourhoods like it. They won't admit to it but actions speak louder than words and where they choose to live and what neighbours they want speaks volumes about their real preferences.

The residents of Markham do not have problems with Taoists and Muslims so long as they can be moved to the corner and out of the way where they can easily be ignored. This is so that they can go on for one more day pretending that the colonization of their town and country is not happening but this solution to their discomfort is superficial. The core of the problem is with our immigration system and the colonizing effect it is having on the country. If they truly cherish Markham's historic town core then they need to address this fact or else lose it forever.

If you are interested in signing the petition here it is again.

Monday, 10 October 2011

If Landlords Can Advertise For Muslim Only Tenants...

...does that mean, if principles are to be applied equally, that Canada can choose to accept only non-Muslim citizens?

Isn't it the same thing only on different scales?

Are we to see this as yet another example of Muslims rejecting the principles of living in a multicultural society while hypocritically reaping the benefits of living in one? If they don't want to live with non-Muslims then why are they in Canada in the first place? Is Muslim immigration really about immigration or is it Islamic colonialism and invasion through immigration? And are demands for accommodation acts of conquest? If so then they are not here to live with us. They are here to eventually rule over us and turn Canada into an Islamic state. If that is true, even in the slightest, then we need to rethink Muslim immigration and the place Islam has within Canadian society.

In all honesty I happen to side with the landlords. It is their property and if they so desire want to rent to Muslim tenants only then so be it.

But this should be applied to the nation as well expressed through the immigration system. We only accept immigrants from all over the world, including Muslims, on principle but in reality there is nothing compelling us to do so. If Canadians want to keep the country white majority and preserve its European heritage then let our immigration system reflect that desire. Being Canadian is more than just the acceptance of a bunch of values that aren't even unique to the country anyway.

Seriously, what people whole heartedly embraces a future in which they will be rendered a minority through the steady importation of disparate and unassimilating peoples who at times find themselves in conflict with the host culture? I'm pretty sure all native Tibetans just love the Han Chinese colonization of their country and welcome each Han Chinese immigrant with open arms. Aren't they enriching them with their diversity after all?

Muslims can't have it both ways. They can't establish colonies and enforce "no go zones" - quasi mini Islamic states in western cities exclusive to Muslims - yet support indiscriminate, liberal immigration systems that let them waltz into western nations and set up their exclusive Muslims colonies in the first place. I think the populace has made it clear that they are uncomfortable with Muslim immigration and the ever growing presence of Islam within Canadian territory. So, if Muslims feel they have the right to deny non-Muslims the opportunity to live on Muslim owned properties in Canada then I guess the citizens of Canada have the right to deny Muslims the opportunity to enter and settle in the country.

Fair's fair, is it not?

As for Canada's Human Rights Commission let's stop kidding ourselves once and for all. They are not about the universal protection of human rights but a weapon of mass destruction aimed at the host European, Christian heritage culture of Canada chiefly conservative, white, working class males.

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Coming Soon To A Workplace Near You: ATTACK OF THE TOXIC MINORITIES!!!

The photo accompanying this Toronto Star article shows Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) president Sid Ryan with a banner behind him displaying the slogan "solidarity works." Well, that might be true but apparently diversity doesn't. It appears the OFL is having some internal conflicts one of which can be blamed on the agenda they are pushing as good medicine down our collective throats.

It was revealed that a high ranking official levied charges of racial discrimination and harassment against OFL president Sid Ryan. The complainant, one Terry Downey, is the OFL's third highest ranking officer who is an African-Canadian woman born in Nova Scotia. It should be noted that she is a former investigator at the Human Rights Commission of Ontario which tells us she knows how the game is played. Ironically, she too is facing grievances from OFL staff relating to allegations of harassment and mistreatment. I guess what comes around goes around.

OFL infighting aside there is another issue here and that is the toxic minority in the workplace. What is a toxic minority? It can be anyone of any gender or race or religion or sexuality or a language group or a combination of any of all of those markers who will exploit their minority status to satisfy their ambitions or advance an agenda. Personal gain is their chief motivator and they will use what they can to get what they want, chief among their weapons is the law backed kangaroo court system called a Human Rights Commission.

Despite Terry Downey's accomplishments the ideology that guides the minds of those who have co-opted and lead Canada's labour movement leave this nagging at the back of one's mind that Terry Downey, among others, may have been a beneficiary of identity politics. She is, after all, non-white, female, and a single mother; three criteria that if played well can get one far in an environment were diversity and/or a leftist agenda determine the rules of the game. This is a shame really, since it casts doubt on an individual's competency as they are seen as the token "diversity hiree"; a stock character cast to pander to a particular group in a play seeking to appeal to as wide a range of an audience as possible. But it can be to one's benefit and if endowed with ambition you ride it for as far as it will take you.

In the OFL example one high ranking official charged another with racial discrimination and harassment. The allegations were eventually found baseless after a costly investigation and to me this is another example of victim politics strikes again. Victim politics tells us that if you are a woman, or a woman of colour, or a single mother, or a man of colour, or an immigrant, or disabled, etc., it's because you are being discriminated against and to deny you a job, or advancement, or any perk and benefit is a violation of your human rights. Terry Downey may have felt her ambitions were being frustrated because she is a woman and a "racialized" member of society and for no other reason but. So to show that discrimination is not at play Terry Downey should get what she wants because she is a woman and a "racialized" member of society. See how that works?

The University of Windsor's Faculty of Law provides another example. About a year ago the Faculty was looking for a new dean. It ended up not hiring anyone at that time but one of the unsuccessful candidates wasn't going to hear any of it. Claiming discrimination on the basis of race and sex Dr. Emily Carasco sought to force the University to rethink their decision and give her the job anyway. The University should have seen it coming because Dr. Carasco is an apparent grievance monger.

Arguably one of the most asinine examples of late was when an Ottawa couple was awarded $12,000 to be paid by Air Canada because a stewardess was unable to assist them in the French language.

The Employment Equity Commission in Ontario during the governing years of the NDP under the leadership of Bob Rae provides another example and I'm certain there are more.

The lessons here are obvious: 1) if a member of one of the government's official victim groups (which is anyone who is not an able bodied English speaking white male) gets a job or a promotion then its due to competency and accomplishment and if not then its because of discrimination necessitating an investigation and possible rectification; 2) a member of an official victim group should be accommodated everywhere and at all times and if that is not possible then compensation is in order to the benefit of the victim. This being entrenched in the psyche of our multicultural society should we at all be surprised when immigrant and minority groups act like spoiled children throwing a tantrum every time they don't get what they want?

What fuels toxic minority behaviour is a sense of entitlement germinated in the identity politics of perpetual victimhood which itself is rooted in Marxist ideology. This works in concert with multiculturalism which encourages immigrants to feel they deserve special consideration and exemption in the form of accommodation and diversity quotas. So on the one had they are victims and therefore deserve stuff while on the other hand they are different and thus special and deserve stuff as well. The result is an individual with a raging sense of entitlement that if they are denied the stuff they expect to receive the conclusion they come to is systemic discrimination as oppression which means lawsuits and human rights complaints and tribunals and nag, nag, nag.

Small business owners beware. The internal complaint brought against OFL president Sid Ryan cost more than $350,000 dollars in union dues to bring to resolution. That's $350,000 dollars in union dues! Not only is it a large sum of money wasted on nothing it also means Sid Ryan didn't have to pay a cent for his defence. Other people did via the OFL. Now imagine if you are a small business owner and one of your employees brought a similar suit against you. How will you handle it? How do you address charges of racism and sexism? You can defend yourself against wrongful dismissal suits by proving incompetency on the part of the employee. But how do you prove you're not racist or sexist? Do you have $350,000 to spend on a legal defence because few are in as fortunate a position as Sid Ryan to have other people pay it. The complainant on the other hand has their case paid for care of the taxpayer. They have nothing to lose.

In these situations the small business owner will likely capitulate to the irritant because the other option is to fight the complaint which itself is financially punishing and thus risky possibly forcing you out of business as a consequence. This is a reason why small businesses are often exempt from the dogma of diversity for diversity's sake. When it comes to diversity they simply cannot afford the risks it brings with it. Diversity from this vantage point is not good for business.

Larger organizations can absorb the costs of toxic minorities and may see it as a cost of doing business. Canada's major banks, as an example, are tripping over each other to sell financial services to the ever growing immigrant and non-white demographics. As a business strategy they'll hire people who represent target ethnic markets not because the person is possessed of any particular competency but more so to act as a magnet to attract to the bank members of target ethnic markets along with their money. You see this practice clearly on major TV news networks as ethnic talking-head newscasters of no real appeal aside from their telegenic qualities feed us the news while offering no sense of why we should take them or what they are talking about seriously. They are tokens chosen to appeal to particular ethnic markets whose eyes and ears are valued to advertisers at the cost of delivering a newscast of any real substance. To see this tokenism one only need to ask why a major Canadian market like Toronto with its sizeable black population displays a poverty of black faces on the evening news while one cannot go for more than ten minutes without seeing a face from the over represented Asian and south Asian communities. Follow the money and see which ethnic groups are more upwardly mobile and you'll see which ethnic communities are most valued by advertisers and how they influence hiring decisions.

Smaller operations, if they choose to embrace diversity in its hiring practices, better be prepared to embrace the consequences as well and the government appears intent on forcing those consequences on them. One way it does this is through the social pressure generated by a government intent on forcing diversity in all it shapes and sizes onto a passive albeit unreceptive population. Another way is through a kind of rewards system by doling out lucrative government contracts to businesses that best adhere to the diversity dogma. Small businesses will feel compelled to adopt a diversity quota in its workforce and this includes the hiring of potentially toxic minorities even if they are not the best candidates.

To illustrate imagine a work environment that is all white males. Now imagine a position opened up at the work place. Say there are ten applicants of which one is a white woman, another is a non-white woman, and another is a non-white male. Odds are the best candidate may be one of the remaining white males but even if that is the case that still leaves you open to a grievance suit. The failed applicants can allege a culture of discrimination benefiting white males and file a human rights complaint. This will cost the business time and money but not to the complainant who gets their case paid for by the tax payer. To avoid this and to bring diversity into the workplace the business selects the diversity option and hires one of the non-white male candidates. This still doesn't free them of future grievance suits since promotions may be viewed as another avenue of white male privilege if the non-white male employee feels their advancement within the organization is not happening fast enough if at all.

How promoting diversity in the workplace is a good thing is never fully explained. Some argue that it helps make a business, indeed the nation, competitive internationally but this has not, and cannot, be verified. I don't see how choosing the diversity candidate over the best candidate makes you competitive when the potential toxicity of the diversity candidate can make the workplace a poisonous environment. Choosing diversity - especially for it's own sake - does not guarantee competitiveness, or efficiency, or innovation for that matter. The more likely outcome will be mediocrity.

This post was inspired by this video.