Sunday, 11 August 2013

David Suzuki For Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, And All That Other Sh*t.

It appears Chris Alexander has been appointed the new Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism instead of David Suzuki in the latest cabinet shuffle. Too bad. Going by recent comments made by Suzuki he may have been the better choice for the post.

I am very dismissive of the environmental movement in Canada because it cowardly refuses to address mass immigration as a root problem of their concerns. Environmentalists will see progress in their cause if they bothered themselves to pressure the government to reduce Canada's already too high immigrant intake. They have the arguments and public opinion is on their side.

I can only suspect the reason for their silence is that the membership of the environmental movement is primarily made up of the same ilk who are more used to throwing around accusations of xenophobia, bigotry, and racism instead of receiving them. They therefore understand full well that were they to publicly question the immigration system - the number of immigrants the country admits, their quality, and the alleged benefits of the system overall - it will leave them open to counter-productive ad-hominem attacks by those who seek to challenge them which in turn means fewer diner party invitations from the establishment elite they so desperately want to be apart of.

What they fail to understand is it is not racist or xenophobic or bigoted to criticize the immigration system. Why should it be? Is it because the vast majority of immigrants to Canada now are non-white and Canada is currently a white majority country and therefore criticism of the immigration system is inherently racist? So does this mean we cannot criticize it until whites are a minority population? And even then can we still? What if all immigration to Canada was white? Are arguments against the immigration system still racist? When can we criticize the immigration system if at all?

The issue is more so about quality of life than race and if it is demonstrable that the immigration system is more detrimental than beneficial to the lives of Canadians then it is our right to oppose it, slamming the border shut if need be. If immigrants are to be lauded for seeking a better life in Canada then it goes Canadians are justified in demanding changes to the immigration system if it means a better life for them. A better life for immigrants should not be built on a worse life for Canadians.

As for David Suzuki's comments there is no point in repeating what has already been said elsewhere. What is interesting to note is how both the left and right in this country responded.

From the right it was mostly scoffing from the Sun News crowd. This is not surprising. They do not like the man anyway and jump on anything he says or does (and some of it is justified I should add). I must say I found myself disappointed they engaged in the same behaviour one encounters with the left when they attack opponents of the immigration system. Sad, really.

From the left, near dead silence. Not at all surprising here either. I did a search at the Toronto Star - a paper that has more than once delivered up its pages to be a pulpit from which David Suzuki can preach - and found no reference to his interview in L'Express. Indeed, they published another sermon of his some two days later. No mention is made in that article about immigration.

And so that is how it goes in Canada concerning the non-existent debate about immigration. The right is just as prone to grandstanding as the left to show they are more pro-immigration than their political counterparts. And when inconvenient truths are mentioned by one of their own the left play hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Just pretend he did not say it and he did not say it. Better that than acknowledge the points he raises.

Lost in all of this is the opportunity to have a much wanted national discussion about immigration. One is long overdue and the rabble is getting restless.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Remember the beating Stoffman was given for essentially iterating the very same policy position on immigration.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/canada2020/essay-stoffman.html

PaxCanadiana said...

He authored the book "Who Gets In?" If you haven't read it you should.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever read Linda Hutcheon's book of essays on the immigrant experience, titled "Other Solitudes"? She argues that multicultural societies like Canada, tend to fossilize ethnicites into “folk memories,” “singing,” “dancing,” and “exotic food”, and that such communities exist outside of mainstream culture, in ethnic enclaves like Chinatown and Little Korea. From my experience, I will say that there is definitely an isolationist "clan" mentality shared by some members of these communities, but I wouldn't go so far as to theorize that towns like Woodbridge, ON will become independent city states, annexed by Italy.

While I agree with your statement that "a better life for immigrants should not be built on a worse life for Canadians", I ask, who do you define as Canadian? My parents were landed immigrants in the 1980s, and have worked in the Financial and Engineering sectors since that time. They pay their taxes, haven't broken any laws, and appreciate the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

You contend that gridlock is attributable to "too much immigration", and makes life in Canada's urban centres unlivable. Does that apply to the Anglo-Europeans driving their cars into the city too? Does the prohibitively expensive cost of housing in cities like Toronto, perhaps compel new immigrant families to live in the suburbs, rather than the gentrified downtown neighbourhoods?

You argue that Middle Eastern -European cultures are more ethnically diverse than minorities. I think the kind of cross-pollination you see among Europeans is a natural consequence of their trade and contact with various cultures, some of it through conquest. You're making it sound like the diversity within white ethnic groups is some kind of egalitarian gesture, just because it produces diverse-looking offspring. Whereas the less pronounced physical differences evinced by a child of say a Korean man, and Chinese woman, owing to its lack of distinguishing physical features, contributes to ethic homogeneity? That sounds like a double standard.

You suggest that Canada will become a "banal brown north", and a growth market for dyes and bleaching products, as "everyone will get sick of having the same hair, eye, and skin colour". You seem to suggest that not only is being brown-skinned and brown-eyed undesirable aesthetically (at least if it makes up the preponderant demographic), it also encodes all the negative stereotypes and cultural baggage that goes with it.

You're a proponent of assimilation and integration, and the exclusion of disagreeable cultural practices--fair enough. I'm not for honour killings, misogyny, or abortions either, nor do I think any ethnic group has a right to impinge its values on Canadian society as a whole. But how far can acculturation, as a matter of policy, go? Who decides these standards of what it is to be Canadian? Is forced assimilation any more democratic than what you call the "colonization" of Canada by minorities?

PaxCanadiana said...

Have you ever read Linda Hutcheon's book of essays on the immigrant experience, titled "Other Solitudes"?

No but from what you wrote she seems to touch on similar themes Neil Bisoondath writes about in "Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada."

such communities exist outside of mainstream culture

They exist in their own mainstream culture in their colonies.

who do you define as Canadian? My parents were landed immigrants in the 1980s, .... They pay their taxes, haven't broken any laws, and appreciate the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

Paying your taxes and obeying the law is the bare minimum but not enough.

Ask yourself this? Who is a Canadian and who is a Canuck? Someone can be a Canadian because a piece of paper says so. A Canuck, however, is a dyed-in-the-wool, bleeds maple syrup Canadian. And you know who those are.

You contend that gridlock is attributable to "too much immigration", .... Does that apply to the Anglo-Europeans driving their cars into the city too?

Too much immigration is too much immigration no matter where it comes from.

Does the prohibitively expensive cost of housing in cities like Toronto, perhaps compel new immigrant families to live in the suburbs, rather than the gentrified downtown neighbourhoods?

Immigrants don't want to live in high density, downtown high rises. They want home ownership. Urban sprawl is happening because of immigration. Cost effectiveness has nothing to do with it.

You argue that Middle Eastern -European cultures are more ethnically diverse than minorities.

That's because they are. It's a genetic fact. Whites portray more racial diversity than non-whites.

You seem to suggest that not only is being brown-skinned and brown-eyed undesirable aesthetically (at least if it makes up the preponderant demographic), it also encodes all the negative stereotypes and cultural baggage that goes with it.

No, what I'm saying is that everyone will get bored having the same black hair, brown eyes, and brown skin as everyone else and will seek to stand out by changing some feature about them. What I'm saying is non-whites don't bring the racial diversity we're told they do.

If racial diversity is great then why snuff it out by making a minority of those who display it the most?

But how far can acculturation, as a matter of policy, go? Who decides these standards of what it is to be Canadian? Is forced assimilation any more democratic than what you call the "colonization" of Canada by minorities?

If it is understood and perceived as a value that immigrants are allowed to retain their culture within Canadian society then it goes, allowing for the equal application of principles, that what Canadians perceive to be their culture is also assured.

So think of it this way. Imagine you own a house and seek to allow housemates to live with you to help pay the expenses. You're going to allow those who you think will be most compatible with your living arrangements. You won't allow anyone who will end up rearranging the furniture and making up the house rules that benefit them at your inconvenience even though they pay their bills on time. Don't expect Canadians to be any different.

Canada should be seeking those who are economically as well as culturally compatible to the host society. This mean favouring European based societies (Europe, the U.S., Australia, N.Z.) over all others. Ignoring the cultural you'll just get population replacement along with population growth, and nation building becomes colonization which is what we have now.