If you love the country I hate and hate the country I love, for it is one and the same, please read this:

(If you love the country I hate and hate the country I love, for it is one and the same, please read this: by Tony Nardi posted on Facebook on Friday, November 18, 2011 at 2:21am See https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150400556257866)

 Honour-killing our constitutional rights and constitution is ALSO tribal. And so is our constitution.

                                                               *           *         *

 "MULTICULTURALISM Immigrants should adopt Canadian values to settle here, survey finds" Globe and Mail Nov 16, 2011

 "Adopting Canadian values should be the price of admission" The London Free Press, Nov 18, 2011

 "Culture over cash—Public says adopting Canadian values should be a higher priority for immigrants than achieving financial self-sufficiency: Trudeau Foundation Poll" Canada NewsWireNov 16, 2011

 "Adopting Canadian values should be immigrants’ ticket into country: poll" The National Post Nov 16, 2011

 "Adopting Canadian values should be condition of immigration: Poll" The Calgary Herald, Nov 16, 2011

 "Dalhousie poll finds Canadians think immigrants should assimilate our values" Nov 16, 2011

                                                           *            *           *

It’s hard for people in this country - including many in the arts – to see the kind of racial profiling our national media, government, publicly funded institutions and pollsters engage in daily without even being aware of it. Or maybe they are.

Let’s start with Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:


- 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

I don’t have a problem with Section 27, its wording. But I don’t like Multiculturalism. This is not a contradiction. I don’t like Multiculturalism as it is practically interpreted and practiced in this country. And I don’t like the political and social reality in Canada, in short, those forces that sketched out the reasons for the creation of Section 27.

Section 27 excludes the English and the French Canadians. Apparently they are not part of the multicultural makeup of Canada. They are distinguished by their “bicultural”, “founding nations” status. And that’s a problem. (Would anyone ever even think English and French Canadians are not part of a multicultural world?).

Therefore Multiculturalism in Canada and the constitutional dog bone (section 27) that exclude English and French are in fact segregationist: they define two classes of (and for) Canadians: English and French in first class, the others in second.

If everyone in Canada is equal under our constitution and enjoys the same Fundamental Freedoms (Section 2) and Equality Rights (under Section 15) why do we need the extra interpretive ammunition of Section 27? “Bicultural” Canada limits at every turn “multicultural” Canada, Section 27 notwithstanding. More money goes to bicultural Canada than to multicultural Canada, notwithstanding that population wise multicultural Canada constitutes the majority. But the majority receives minority treatment and funds.

Within this reality, the recent articles in the Canadian press (National Post and the Globe and Mail, etc.) reporting on the results of a survey conducted by Environics and commissioned by the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation (with majority, which includes immigrants, apparently wanting new immigrants to adopt Canadian “values” as a precondition to settling here), are very troubling. “A new poll suggests … there’s a solid consensus around the notion that immigrants should accept certain ‘typical Canadian values’ as a precondition for joining Canadian society.”

If Canada is a “multicultural” country, and section 27 of the Charter Of Rights “officially recognizes” multiculturalism as a “Canadian value”, essentially protecting the right to the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians, what exactly does the press (and the polls) mean by “Canadian” values? Which values? Whose values? Clearly the implied answer is ... Canada’s “bicultural” values.

What are those Canadian “bicultural” values ? And why should “gender equality” and “tolerance of others” be defined as “Canadian values”? They are certainly not intrinsic Canadian values of the ‘bicultural’ peoples of Canada; they are Rights for all Canadians protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If these rights had to be included in the Charter it’s because their exclusion (in a so-called multicultural Canada) would have been very problematic and permitted some of “bicultural” Canada’s “traditional” values to thrive and run amok: namely racism, intolerance and gender inequality.

(Native, aboriginal languages are not protected under the constitution as an official language. Only English and French.)

(Canada was not a leader in “gender equality”. The 1930 Edwards vs. Canada - the Persons case - proves it, notwithstanding Dr. Emily Howard Stowe being one of the “first” female doctors to practice in Canada in the late 1800s, also an activist of women’s rights and suffrage. Canada had a female prime minster once, in 1993. Twenty-six other countries had voted for a woman leader before Canada, which includes India, Indira Gandhi first elected Prime Minister in 1966; and Israel, Golda Meir in 1969)

Framing a question in a poll and reporting on its answers may lead readers to make troubling “racially-based” connections that I believe are intentional on the part of the pollsters and press. This is why people like my friend Carol Sinclair can say: “Certainly, they should not drown their daughters for dressing slutty”. They, presumably, refers to immigrants, new arrivals to Canada. I agree with Carol. Do we actually think that Mohammad Shafia drowned his daughters for dressing slutty because he hails from Afghanistan? Should we increase our racial profiling at the borders as a result? Should we change our entire immigration policy? Should we categorically distrust those people who come here from countries and cultures we hardly know? On what basis or precedent? Canada's track record with native, aboriginal peoples? What should we do? Have customs, immigration and citizen officers asks every person who wants to settle here: “Will you promise not to drown your daughter or wife if she dresses slutty, because, as you know, or should know, it’s not one of our Canadian values? So, please answer the question to the best of your knowledge and ability. Have you ever felt the urge, the need to drown your daughter or wife, given where you come from, your culture, religion, traditions, beliefs and all of that? Yes? No?”

I love this racial profiling, I just have a problem with where we draw the line. No father/husband has a right to drown a daughter or wife for dressing slutty, regardless of culture. Our laws do not permit murder, unless its state sanctioned, of course. But that goes without saying.

Did anyone ever ask about the cultural (religious) background of the former Toronto police officer who killed his long-time lover by sealing her in a 60-gallon plastic garbage container in the basement of his home? Did anyone in the press question his cultural tribe, beliefs and traditions once he was convicted for his heinous crime? Or is it possible that his cultural background had nothing to do with the nature and extent of his crime? Were the early settlers from England and France racial-profiled when they came to these shores? Did they adopt ‘traditional” native aboriginal “Canadian” values? No. They actually proceeded to obliterate from the face of the earth and massacred the entire native population on the premise that they were more civilized.

And let’s look at Canadian Air Force colonel Russell Williams. We can also look at Clifford Olson. But Russell Williams will do. He’s more recent. Williams was “a decorated military pilot who had flown Canadian Forces VIP aircraft for Canadian dignitaries” (Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, The governor general, and the prime minister). “On October 21, 2010, Williams was sentenced to two life sentences for first-degree murder, two 10-year sentences for other sexual assaults, two 10-year sentences for forcible confinement and 82 one-year sentences for burglary; all the sentences will be served concurrently at Kingston Penitentiary. The life sentences mean Williams will serve a minimum of 25 years before parole eligibility.”

It’s interesting how Globe and Mail reporter Tim Appleby defines Russell Williams in a book, A New Kind of Monster. Williams is apparently not a psychopath. “He is not even close to being one… Williams was not that kind of murderer at all… had feelings, emotions, attachments of all kinds: he cared about his wife, he cared about the military; he was devoted to his cats, and he also appears to have a moral compass …”

I’m just looking at the facts, and WHY Williams is behind bars. Williams has very “impressive” pedophile tendencies, had child porn on his computer, but agreed to plead guilty to the other crimes and therefore no charges were laid for child porn. Williams stole underwear of girls as young as 9 years old, clocked 82 fetish home invasions and attempted break-ins between Sept. 2007 and November 2009. He broke into 48 different homes in the Belleville-Tweed area and Ottawa. One home was hit 9 separate times. He was an expert in the field. Of the 82 break-and-enters 61 went undetected or were not reported. He dressed in panties and bras he stole. He apparently lay on the beds of his victims and masturbated, even in young girls’ rooms. How many more was he capable of killing? Would he have killed? We’ll never know.

Were Williams’ ancestors racial-profiled when they came to Canada? Why not? Once Williams was convicted, did anyone in the press attempt to make any connection (or suggest one) between the nature and degree of his crime and his cultural (religious) background? Why not? Based on skin colour, religion, and spelling of his name, does Williams’ deviant sex-killing social behaviour and pathology perhaps reflect a general White Anglo Saxon western world immoral murderous tradition and DNA?

Well, let’s look at the history. Judging from the relatively recent history, the historically proven White Anglo Saxon slave-trade industry and crimes against humanity, that Britain and its colonies essentially owned (and set the standard) for the better part of the last few hundred years, it’s a question worth asking. Were I looking at the west from the east I may just ask these questions. If Williams’ last name were Mohammad, you can bet the number of people polled by Environics who supposedly believe, “…immigrants should be more evenly distributed across the country,” would increase tremendously.

Given this reasoning, I wonder why “Canadians” are not demanding that people with Williams as a last name or who belong to Williams’ cultural-tribal-religious ethnic group are not more evenly distributed across the country so they can perhaps adopt and absorb ‘traditional” Canadian values? Unless, of course, what Williams did (the crimes, the pathological behavior) does in fact constitute a ‘traditional’ Canadian value. Or perhaps what Clifford Olson did and Robert Pickton did also qualify as ‘traditional’ Canadian values. They are after all good solid English Canadian names. And let’s throw in Marc Lépine, the 25-year old who massacred fourteen women and four men at the Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989. Of course we could look into his background and blame his Algerian father (and DNA) for his horrible crime and not his French-Canadian mother. Their crimes (serial killing) apparently can’t be blamed on their cultural background. But crimes committed by immigrants CAN be inked to who they are culturally, religiously, and racially. But not names like Williams, Olson and Pickton.

Some "traditional" Canadian "values" simply mystify me. The illegal internment and confiscation of property of thousands of Canadians of Ukrainian, Japanese, Chinese, Italian, German background during WWI and WWII qualify as traditional “Canadian” values. For a good long stretch during the 20th century illegal internment of Canadians on home soil was a tradition, a pattern, and a habit, if of course they were “ethnic” Canadians. It continues today. Canadian-Muslims are the present-day enemy aliens of choice. Can you imagine if Mohammad Shafia (father and alleged killer of his three daughters) had once flown with the Queen of Great Britain, Prince Philip and dignitaries all over Canada in a military jet or helicopter? When do you think another Mohammad or Shafia would be allowed to fly with the Queen on a Canadian Air Force jet? Or even allowed to clean her toilet or stables? You want to see what kind of racial profiling would kick in for anyone from Afghanistan or Pakistan wanting to join the Arm Forces? Not officially, of course. Tribalism doesn’t work that way; it exists in spite of the laws and the constitution and sometimes it’s built into them.

So, in the wake of the recent Honour Killing Trial in Kingston it’s suddenly open season on our present immigration laws, and the interpretation of Canadian values, what they are and who should adopt them. Not only are the articles and polls presented within a racially offensive context and doctrine, MULTICULTURALISM, but their timing is conveniently piggybacked on the Honour Killing Trial, attempting to make a connection in the “collective Canadian imagination” between one (albeit horrid) crime and an entire culture and people numbering over one billion and a half.

The constitutional lawyer who recently told me the Crusades never took a break since they first started in the year 1096 is right, yet again.