Re: [OT] Pro-Palestinians in Toronto CELEBRATE Iranian bombs falling on Israel

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
 

Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was
interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing
on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the
article.) 

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
 

 

He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
racists. Look where that's gotten us! 

 
The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.

That's an interesting thing to say. I've never heard it stated that
way but it's important to say it to make clear that the melting pot
idea was an expectation of many Americans but not something mandated by
the federal or state governments.

Many
immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly
motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution and
war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had
essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be
forced to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't want
to go to.
 
But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to the
"melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th century
and much of the 20th century accused Catholics -- especially Irish
ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and therefore disloyal.

I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all
Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
true?

This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large
numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous
administration to put in his own clan.

Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.

That and certain very public
celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's no
reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the
Americas).
>

Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s; prior
to that, there were a variety of Italian states. (Much the same was the
case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of the
Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)

The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to
Christianity to fit it. Whatever concerns they must have had about
persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
still felt they could practice their religion here.
 

Not everything melted. But what everybody found in America, at least
after the first generation which may have organized gangs for, er,
community protection, was that everybody got along because they never
gave a shit about European national rivalries to begin with (except
for soccer). Norwegians and Swedes get along. Pakistani and Indians
get along. We managed to find new rivalries but artificial attempts to
preserve old world culture couldn't possibly counteract that.
 

I think this was largely true in Canada too, but with some exceptions.
First, tensions between francophones and everyone else seem to have
been a feature of life in this country since the British took over by
the end of the Seven Years War. The francophones were never really
assimilated but that's a delicate topic in our history so I honestly
don't know to what extent the British even tried. I suspect they didn't
think they could force assimilation too readily when the majority of
the population were francophones.

Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in BC
blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely people
from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the Golden
Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an independent
Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions between Sikhs and
Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a source of tension
between Canada and India given that Modi deplores the idea of an
independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to defend the right of
Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.

He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed
ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be
a good start. 

 
Of course I agree.
 

A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of
any naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then
deporting them too. 

 
Conviction of a felony, lying on immigration papers about having
committed felonies in the old country (for crimes that would have been
crimes in the new world, not just laws oppressing citizens), the usual
reasons.
 

Yes.

There would obviously need to be very serious
discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
to start to move on this.  

 
Aren't these laws already on the books?

These laws may exist but the politicians and/or courts are extremely
reluctant to invoke them. As Horny Goat pointed out, they were used to
deport Ernst Zundel, a neo-Nazi, back to Germany when he was a pain in
the ass here, and they also TRIED to use it to deport some alleged
Holocaust perpetrators back to Germany but largely failed. (For
instance, Helmut Oberlander, a successful property developer in my
hometown was supposed to be stripped of his citizenship and sent back
to trial in Germany but he fought it in the courts; the legal
precedings were still ongoing despite years of efforts when he finally
died here in Canada at 104.

I think our courts are reluctant to prosecute things that risk
citizenship becase their political masters are inevitably going to be
extremely cautious about the consequences. I don't think they're going
to want voters to worry that the citizenships they earned are going to
be forfeit for any but the most serious offenses. We have a very large
percentage of naturalized citizens and residents that are going through
the naturalization process. A party that seems ready to toss people out
of the country after they've undergone the dislocation involved in
immigrating, probably learning a new language, probably struggling to
requalify in their old profession or often taken on a whole new one
would risk grave issues at election time!

Any legislation that proposed stripping people of citizenship would
have to be the result of a strong concensus of practically everyone if
it isn't going to become an anchor around the neck of just the dominant
party in Parliament.


--
Rhino