December 16, 2003
MAYBE WE CAN BORROW THAT FENCE IDEA FROM ISRAEL:
The long road for the Canadian right (Mark Wegierski, December 15, 2003, Enter Stage Right)
It should be pointed out that Canada today may be seen as combining the most liberal aspects of America and Europe -- indeed, it may be the world's most liberal society. Like some European countries such as the Netherlands, it is extremely socially-liberal, as demonstrated by the Canadian federal government's recent acceptance of "same-sex marriage." Although a vote on the issue will eventually take place in the Federal Parliament, it will be with direct referral to the Canadian Supreme Court. What conservative critics call "judicial activism" is in Canada a comparatively late but now flourishing development, which only really got underway with the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) into the Canadian Constitution. The Charter, clearly a left-liberal rather than classical liberal document, essentially enshrined virtually the entire agenda of Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Canada's left-leaning Liberal Prime Minister from 1968-1984, except for nine months in 1979-1980) as the highest law of the land. After Brian Mulroney's huge Progressive Conservative majorities of 1984 and 1988 -- whose record in regard to social and cultural conservatism was indeed abysmal -- Canada's federal Liberal Party (headed by Jean Chretien) comfortably won the elections of 1993, 1997, and 2000.On the other hand, unlike some European countries, Canada is characterized by very high rates of immigration, and it has whole-heartedly embraced multiculturalism, affirmative action (called "employment equity" in Canada), and diversity with a startling degree of unidirectional intensity. Canada's official immigration numbers are more than twice as large as those of the United States -- per capita -- and are probably among the highest in the world. With a population of about 30 million persons, Canada receives every year about a quarter-million immigrants, most of whom end up in large cities, especially Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal.
At the same time, Canada has now embraced some of the more negative aspects of American society -- such as the excesses of pop-culture, the trend to political-correctness, and growing litigiousness. However, it lacks many aspects of America that may temper the aforementioned trends.
In Canada, for example, the government accounts for about half of the GDP. (In contrast to about a third in the United States.) Taxes are very high, relative to the United States. The Canadian medical system is stringently socialized to an extent unheard of in the United States. Canada's gun control laws are also extremely strict. Unlike the United States, fundamentalist Christianity plays virtually no role in Canada. The debate about abortion and many other social issues is considered effectively closed.
In another extreme contrast to the United States, Canada has virtually no military (the entire armed forces, including army, navy, air force, and reserves, number about 58,000 men and women) and there is major disdain throughout much of Canadian society (and especially in elite opinion) towards the military. [...]
The current-day Canadian situation -- of near-total left-liberal intellectual hegemony, of very little authentic academic or journalistic debate, and of little hope that a centre-right party will ever unseat the Liberals at the federal level -- cannot be described as offering prospects for a truly humane future for Canada. There is certainly no intellectual balancing of Left and Right, and very little possibility of alternation at the federal level between left-leaning and conservative parties, in Canada today.
It can't go Asian fast enough to suit. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 16, 2003 10:23 PM
"It can't go Asian fast enough to suit."
Not quite sure what you mean by that, OJ...
Posted by: Ed at December 17, 2003 2:48 AMLow birth rates, high immigration..
Posted by: oj at December 17, 2003 8:11 AMA little too gloomy and off the mark on affirmative action yet, overall, accurate enough to make one squirm. But despair is a sin and remember where you guys were in the late 70's. Aux Barricades! The boomers won't live forever.
Posted by: Peter B at December 17, 2003 9:03 AMAt which point Canada will cease to be a western country and become an eastern country.What people like Mr. Judd call "Western values" will be gone.
P.S.:Trudeu more or less publicly admitted his policies had the aim of destroying Canada as it had evolved to that point,the same aim as our own muti-culturalists,some of whom also admit this publicly.
The more multi-cultural we become,the more authoritarian the state will become to maintain some kind of public order.
Posted by: M. at December 17, 2003 10:30 AMM
Couldn't disagree more. While immigration has to be handled realistically and intelligently, the third world immigrants are our best hope. They work harder, keep their families intact, take care of themselves, etc. And you will see them out in droves proudly celebrating Canada Day. Nothing like seeing people in saris and headscarves with maple leaf stickers on their faces to give badly-needed hope.
Posted by: Peter B at December 17, 2003 11:03 AMPeter,you and OJ will disagree,but surveys generally show that attitude being lost in second generation offspring.Among hispanics it's unfortunately clear that they largely assimilate the negative aspects of our pop-culture and political culture.
Like it or not,ethnic separatism is in our future,thus the spoils system and speech codes.The very emphasis of multi-culti is ethnic and cultural separatism with assimilation prevented as much as possible.
Is there any aspect of traditional Canadian culture that would be defended,some custom or folkway that wouldn't be abolished,in the name of multi-culturalism?Some symbol that deserves protection and respect?
M:
Surveys show that Latinos are significantly more socially conservative than Anglos, suggesting that the best hope of keeping Canada a Western nation would be massive immigration from Catholic Latin America.
Posted by: OJ at December 17, 2003 11:33 AMOJ,blacks are more socially conservative than anglos and vote 90%+ for the party of secularism,gay sex and abortion.
Latinos also consider abortion to be an anglo issue and thus of no concern to them.They will also vote the spoils system,as much for cultural reasons as for economic advantage.
The fastest growing broadcaster in the US is Univision,not Fox.The issues for latinos are basicly,"how do we make this place more like home".They are here in enough numbers that there is little need for them to assimilate when they can retain all aspects of their native culture and languege as well as aquire political privalage.
Yet they assimilate and they vote for W.
Posted by: OJ at December 17, 2003 12:11 PMM
Ah, those surveys. Look, I agree that we make a fetish of muticulturalism and I'm getting sick of the verb "enriched", but the way we actually treat immigration is much closer to the States than Europe. We don't talk about Councils of Muslims or seats for the Chinese, etc. and we genuinely accept them as Canadians very fast. If they want to keep struggling to maintain dress, food, language, etc., I can live with that. Looking at the schools and professions in very multi-ethnic Ottawa, I just don't see this alienation you are talking about. Nor do the ethnics have much time for one another. Even in Toronto and Vancouver, where things can get dicey at times, it's hardly a boiling pot.
Yes, there are disgruntled activists who cry discrimination and haul people before Human Rights Tribunals at the drop of the hat, but I don't see marches in the street in support. Multiculturalism is really a faith of patronizing white liberal elites, and the sooner they go, the better.
It's true they don't adhere to those good old Canadian traditions, but as you and I are the only ones left who do (;-)), that may be a losing battle. Besides, which ones?
Posted by: Peter B at December 17, 2003 12:19 PMW proposed to expand the welfare state and grant amnesty to illegals,OJ.Again,the spoils system.And I don't think his share of that vote was really impressive.Fewer latinos voted for him TX than had voted for him for govenor.
Unfortunately,latinos are assimilating to the worst aspects of black culture and white pop-culture where they assimilate at all,unless thats what you actually mean by assimilation.
Sorry,but"as California goes,so goes the nation".
Arnie isn't going to save that place.
Pat Buchanen's problem is that he's deeply romanticised America of the 30's,40's and 50's,the muscular urban/industrial America of his childhood,with "Rhapsody in blue" as theme music.Ardent immigrationists have deeply romanticised America of the the pre-1920's.Circumstances,economicly,socially,politicaly have changed dramiticaly.It worked before,but it isn't working now.As Miami is basicly a Cuban city,So LA will become a Mexican city.
Posted by: M. at December 17, 2003 12:32 PMLatinos in CA opposed the drivers license bill and voted for Arnold against a Latino in some considerable number. They supported English-only. Etc., etc., etc. The question for those who care about Western Civilization isn't whether to admit Latinos, but whether to keep Anglos.
Posted by: OJ at December 17, 2003 12:44 PMUpper class anglos,OJ.Yes,they're a problem,but a problem that will solve itself when the new tribes feel they no longer need white patrons to control the spoils system.When that happens it will be very entertaining.
Posted by: M. at December 17, 2003 1:00 PMSurveys show that Latinos are significantly more socially conservative than Anglos, suggesting that the best hope of keeping Canada a Western nation would be massive immigration from Catholic Latin America.
Actually such a course of action would be disastrous for Canada. Canada's merit-based immigration system (which seems to attract mainly skilled/professional Indian and Chinese immigrants) is vastly preferable to the nepotistic immigration system America has in place now.
... which is why I'd say Canada has had far greater success in integrating its (primarily South and East Asian) immigrants (despite all the multi-culti talk) than America's (mainly unskilled Latino) immigrant population over the past decade or so.
Plus Asian cultural values are in fact far more in line with the traditional Protestant ethos: thrift, entrepreneurship, high educational achievement, low crime rates, low rates of illegitimacy, intact nuclear+extended families etc... And what Peter B. says is right: race relations in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver etc. are far more harmonious than in most large US metropolises. (For a 50% non-white metropolis of nearly 4 million, Toronto remarkably boasts only about 60 homicides/year.)
So in fact Canada (8% Asian) is in fact pursuing a far more prudent path than increasingly Hispanicized (25% Black+Latino) America. Quite obliviously (and rather ironic if you think about it) wishy-washy-politically-correct-liberal-socialist Canadians in fact have some of the most stringent requirements for entry...
Posted by: Ryan at December 17, 2003 1:32 PMM
Adding to what Ryan said, if you walk the street of Canadian cities you will see lots of ill-dressed, stupid looking and stupid behaving young people of whom you wonder how they could hold a menial job for two hours let alone support themselves and a family. Guess what colour most of them are?
Posted by: Peter B at December 17, 2003 2:37 PMRyan,I would happily supprot such a system here,but any hint of reform tends to send the pro crowd into a frenzy.
Peter,I could say something snide about Canadians,but I won't,though self-loathing is as much a part of the public education curriculum there as it is here,I'm not surprised.
My point was not about race,but culture.
Culture counts,just ask those who were forced to shape marxism to fit local culture.(and still failed)OJ and other enthusiasists show just how much marxism has become mainstream.Yes,like it or not,what people look like,what they think and how think,matters a great deal.
ASk Korean grocers in L.A. or jewish merchants in Harlem.
M:
I support stemming the tidal wave of Mexican Marxists and only letting in the Catholics and Evangelicals.
Posted by: OJ at December 17, 2003 3:39 PMM.
I agree this is not a simple issue that intelligent people should be blindly for or against. But where is the evidence that third world immigrants are ideologically different or even more statist. Quite the contrary I believe.
Having said that, there is one big difference in that Canada does not have the kind of problem California and the south has with a porous border. I wouldn't presume to comment on that one.
Posted by: Peter B at December 17, 2003 5:10 PM