As we all know, Kellie Leitch tried her best during the Con leadership race to make us believe that she was Canada's Donald or Donalda Trump.
Denouncing the One-Percent even though she's one of them. And ranting and raving about immigrants and refugees.
It didn't do her any good of course. She finished in sixth place, behind even Brad Trost. She was humiliated, and as we know is clearly seething with rage.
But since her weak leader Andrew "Smiley" Scheer hasn't even given her a slap on the wrist.
Wouldn't it be ironic if it was Donald Trump who finally finished her off?
For it seems that unlike Leitch he's impressed with our immigration system.
If it seems weird that Mr. Trump would propose Canada as a model for anything, that’s understandable. Americans, especially conservatives, love to mock their northern neighbor: for its accent, its apologetic manners, its food (oh, poutine) — and above all, for its supposedly softheaded, pinko style of government.
Yet when it comes to immigration, Canada’s policies are anything but effete. Instead, they’re ruthlessly rational, which is why Canada now claims the world’s most prosperous and successful immigrant population.
And with good reason.
Canada’s foreign-born population is more educated than that of any other country on earth. Immigrants to Canada work harder, create more businesses and typically use fewer welfare dollars than do their native-born compatriots.
Which makes me wonder whether Leitch is aware of those facts. And if so is she an idiot as well as a bigot?
But at least I now know why Andrew Scheer won't expel her from the Con caucus, or even criticize her.
For all you have to do is read this harmless tweet.
And then read the comments from Con supporters, to understand that he dare not offend his bigot base.
And then ask yourself what kind of party includes people who would make those kind of comments?
Where are all those religious fanatics coming from?
How might they react if Trump does use the Canadian system as his model?
If he’s truly serious about reform, the president could do a lot worse than look north for answers. He wouldn’t even have to admit where he got them from. Canadians are a modest, unassuming lot, used to being overlooked and overshadowed. They won’t mind keeping his secret.
And what would Andrew Scheer say to Kellie Leitch then?
And yes, this is the bottom line.
Scheer can try to put a smiley face on the Cons.
But with all those educated immigrants, and a bigot base like that one.
He doesn't stand a chance...
19 comments:
Andrew Scheer is repulsive
"Multiculturalism is at the heart of Canada's heritage and identity, and as Canadians, we recognize that our differences make us strong."
This statement is a blatant falsehood. If the prime minister actually knew anything about Canada's history (or was honest about it) he would know that assimilation was the goal until the 1970's and even then the invitation was only extended to people from various regions of Europe. Otherwise, not only were people from other continents (save Australia) not encouraged to become Canadian (head taxes, denial of entry, denial of permanent residency) but if they happened to land here and stayed due to employment they were often shunned and ostracized by the existing population.
People naturally gravitate to what's familiar and to people with whom they feel they might have something in common. That's how we successfully choose our neighbourhoods, our friends, our partners and even the members of our families with whom we feel a special bond.
The concept of multiculturalism isn't very old at all and frankly, it's been a failure. Differences do not bring people together, they divide them. Commonalities bring people together and make a country strong.
While we make reference to 'the South Asian community' or 'the Filipino community', indicating they are different, nowhere in this country do we refer to a group of people as the 'British community' or the 'Dutch community' because they've all integrated to become one thing- Canadian.
Canada has never seemed more foreign to me than it does today. I have heard from many others, including older immigrants, that they feel exactly the same way. Aside from French Canada, the concept of multiculturalism is disrespectful to the heritage and cohesive culture of this nation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-parliament-news-conference-1.4179377
You're completely wrong about multiculturalism being disrespectful of the heritage of this nation. In fact, large numbers of immigrants from China, Japan and India, to name a few non-European countries, arrived in this country in the late 1800s and early 1900s, back when the government was not overly welcoming, but they and their descendents stayed, helped build this country and form part of the Canadian heritage.
Generally, ethnic communities only exist for the benefit of first-generation immigrants. Even then, not all ethnic groups feel enough solidarity to form a "community." Second and third generation Canadians mostly live outside their ethnic communities, since they have more in common with other Canadians and generally don't speak the ethnic language well.
There are a couple of reasons why we don't see a British community. First, as anyone knows who watches Britain compete in the World Cup as England, Scotland and Wales, the Brits are tribal. Indeed parts of Toronto are named for the Irish (Wexford) and Scottish (Cedarbrae) immigrants who settled there. And second, the original settlers with their pubs and fish-and-chip shops have moved on, to be replaced by new immigrants from South Asia and China. That's the way it's always been.
The other old Canadian tradition, mainly among conservatives, is complaining about the nasty foreigners, their smelly foods, their cultish religions, and their disrespect for our heritage. Some things never change.
Hey Anon. I hereby cordially invite you to move away, if you hate the place. Long live progressive Canada!!!!
Anon 9:25 - You are incorrect about the "Dutch Community" not being an entity or thing. I live in the metro Vancouver area and do not have far to go to encounter that entity. In the Fraser Valley, from Aldergrove to Chilliwack is a region heavily populated with worshippers from the Mennonite Church, of mostly Dutch and Germanic descent. Go south from there and Lynden, Wa. you'll find is also predominantly Mennonite. Four hours by car northeast of the Fraser Valley in the north Okanagan around Vernon is also heavily populated with Mennonites. If one moves to those communities, attempts to set up a business or run for public office, that person would have a difficult time succeeding due to the fact one wouldn't be part of the "tribe." If you're from Calgary and move to Lethbridge, you'll find a Mennonite community made up of Dutch/German descent who are the second largest denomination after the Mormon church. The Dutch/German mennonite community aren't the only ones who can be insular. Many large towns and communities have Canadians of Italian descent who call themselves "Italians" and only do business or with or vote for those of Italian descent. Co-workers of mine from Ontario told me you'll find towns there made up of mostly Irish-Canadians with some, like the Italian Canadians and the Dutch Canadians and German Canadians have a percentage of their members ostracizing those who aren't part of the "Club." The reason one doesn't notice this insular behaviour as much as your "South Asian" community is simple: Skin colour. But it's still there, just more subtle until one has to live with it. As afar as the cohesive culture of Canada, what is that? I believe SCTV captured it perfectly with their "Great White North" sketches many years ago when they were told by the CRTC they didn't have enough Canadian content. I will soon be completing six decades on the face of this earth, living all of them in Canada and I have yet to see the definition of Canadian culture you say is being disrespected. Shouldn't we define what is being disrespected first?
mr perfect
BTW If anyone is travelling the Trans Canadian highway through southern Saskatchewan east of Regina, can you check if Andrew Scheer has replace his vanity sign with an even bigger vanity sign now he is official opposition leader? The last one was pretty big, much bigger than his smarts and sincerity.
mr perfect
I'm going to venture a guess that Scheer's deplorable supporters don't like the other famous quote that Pierre said:
"The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
...as they complain about Muslims being hostile to gays, when really all they want is to trot out feigned sympathy for LGBT as a temporary useful tool to bash Muslims with.
Yet it was Scheer who vowed never to march at Pride. He's not Muslim. Meanwhile, there's a picture of Justin getting a hug from a young, gay Syrian refugee at Pride last year, who came to Canada fleeing destruction and despair and wanted to say thank you. Justin said that it wasn't he, per se, all by himself (contrast with Trump's autocratic "I alone can fix it") who brought the boy to Canada, but the good will and kind hearts of his fellow Canadians.
Note that he described the boy as a Canadian. You're a Canadian if you live in Canada, whether you are Syrian, Muslim, Christian, gay, straight or whatever boxes you check off. He's approaching the national (or post-national) identity like that song from the Oliver Twist musical: "Consider yourself at home, consider yourself part of our family." The cons are like the drunk relatives who spout off with their bigoted opinions at holiday dinners. But they're still family.
Justin even said in 2015 (when his own supporters were ready to go after the cons with torches and pitchforks for subjecting the country to the plague of Harperism for a whole decade): "the 11 million people who voted for Stephen Harper are not your enemies. They're your neighbors." Can anyone imagine the teeth-bearing cons saying that of the Liberals? When has Trump ever called off his dogs to stop attacking gays and Muslims and harassing women on the Internet? Why just today he made a callous remark about Mika Brzezinski having plastic surgery!
So how do these mouth-breathers rationalize the fact that a gay Syrian Muslim at Pride is under attack right now not from Assad or even other Muslims, but from the hybrid species of cuckoo birds and vultueres at Rebel Media, and the other racists in the con coalition? How does Leitch, who is a lesbian, feel about Scheer's hostility to LGBT and the fact that were it not for the wedge issue of what scholars call "homonationalism" (Wikipedia has a succinct entry on it), she wouldn't be welcome in the cons at all? Maybe she should thank Pierre, rather than her pal Scheer, for the fact that she can not only be an out lesbian in Canada today, but a practicing physician -- instead of going to jail!
The cons are hostile to anything and anyone that doesn't represent white, heterosexual and weaponized Christianity. Pope Francis type Christianity doesn't appeal to them. It's not "tough" enough. So let them own their stupidity, and let Justin and the Liberals own the collection of his father's aphorisms reflecting the Just Society. Just like Democrats own "we have nothing to fear but fear itself," "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for our country," and "yes we can," and the GOP owns "I am not a crook," "there you go again," and "when you're famous, you can do anything; women will just let you walk up to them and grab 'em by the ____." Let the Liberals own the addendum of Justin's quotes in the Trudeau Encyclopedia too: Not just "it's 2015" but ones like "We shouldn't be afraid of the word 'feminist', and I'm going to keep saying that I am one until it's met with a shrug." As for the cons, he only Pierre quote (well, actually a paraphrase) that suits them is: "Fuddle Duddle."
As I wrote here in another comment, he seems to be missing his Joker makeup. Pretty sure his campaign slogan is going to end up being "Why so serious?"
Co-workers of mine from Ontario told me you'll find towns there made up of mostly Irish-Canadians with some, like the Italian Canadians and the Dutch Canadians and German Canadians have a percentage of their members ostracizing those who aren't part of the "Club."
I grew up in one of those communities. It was essentially 50% UEl and 50% Irish who had arrived in the 1840s. The basic integrating factor is if you were born there or had arrived by kindergarten, not particularly ethnicity.
It did help if you were third or fourth generation since by then anywhere from a quarter to a half of the population were blood relatives but one cannot have everything and it was not essential.
If you arrived by kindergarten, or perhaps by Grade 3, you fit in, at least, with your cohort since everyone knew everyone and shared all kinds of experiences. You, also, often fit in with many of your cohorts parents since they had known you "forever" as one of their children's friends and they may have coached you in peewee hockey or been the leader of your Girl Guide troop. Of course, you spoke the local dialect of English.
To a large extent, the people there were not consciously ostracizing anyone, they just had little or no interest in newcomers as all their social networks were long established. There, certainly, was racism and prejudice but the key thing was insider vs outsider status.
There was and still is bias but more "towards" insiders than "against" newcomers. For example if something cost X dollars, the outsider would pay X dollars, an insider might get a 5% discount. But then, the insider was buying from his second or third cousin or someone she had been in the 4H with and so on.In these communities everyone knew everyone (quite possibly was related to) everyone else. Even if you came from another similar village or town 100km away, it was very hard to assimilate.
Add different languages and customs and it immediately became an order of magnitude or two more difficult.
Anon2:39
Very well said. Thank you.
The Reform-A-Cons are the big tent party for fundamentalists. At the core are the religious while closer to the perimeter there are those somewhat less driven by religion but share some of the other psychological traits. Representatives like Kellie are required to keep the base in the tent by blowing the dog whistle as required but directional enough to avoid spooking those in other parts of the tent. Others are more driven by some of the other common traits such as need for the government to define and enforce morality, fear of the future, provide authoritarian simple solutions with no ambiquity and no real thought required from them, fear of others, esteem booster as they are member of the elect as the government subtly puts down others.
Its a big tent and attractive to many on the margins due to the rapid technologically driven changes in society that we are facing. The religious core are mostly a loss but battle has to be waged on the perimeter membership through dialogue and perhaps even accepting some compromise. Fundamentalism is a strong psychological force especially in uncertain transitional times.
RT
hi anon 9:25 am...I don't know where you live, but living in Toronto multiculturalism works for me. It makes everything more interesting, from the way we look to what we eat. And although I don't want to generalize, I find that new Canadians tend to celebrate this country more than the native born. So I can only surmise that your real problem is being trapped in the past...
hi anon...I completely agree with you. Multiculturalism is a huge success in this country, and one we can all be proud about. And as you point out, the immigrant story is the same no matter where you came from. The first wave might cling to the old country while they set down roots in the new one. But the second and third generation Canadians are steeped in this country's values and hard to tell from any other. As the story I linked to shows, our immigration story is not just a great human success story, it's a great economic story as well. And you're right, when it comes to the Cons, some things never change...
hi anon...well I share your sentiment, I don't want to be too harsh, or make the same mistake the Cons do. So let's just say there will always be room in some parts of rural Alberta, for those who wish to give vent their bigotry. As long as they put up signs warning the rest of us to keep driving, I can live with that...
hi Mr Perfect...now that's interesting. You mean shiny, smiley, aw shucks Scheer has a big vanity sign? Although I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, for Canadians should not be fooled. Scheer is a ruthless political operator, with an ego as big as a mountain. The day that smiley mask falls off, Canadians will not like what they see, and will hopefully fire him before he does any lasting harm...
hi anon 2:39...thanks for that excellent comment, well said. The fact that we are such a peaceful and successful country owes everything to tolerance and nothing to bigotry. When I walk around my neighbourhood and see new Canadian families with their little maple leaf flags, I give thanks as an immigrant myself for having had a chance to grow up in this magnificent young country. We may not be perfect yet, but we're definitely heading in the right direction....
hi RT...yes, the Cons are always looking for a way to scare people into voting for them, even if that means beating the drum of intolerance. And in these days of rapid change they are able to attract the support of some of those who believe we can return to a simpler past. We can't, and there is no point trying. We just need to keep reinforcing our humble Canadian values, and our future will be a bright one...
hi anon 7:11 am...I'm glad you feel that way because I do too. I normally like people who smile a lot, I have to because I am one of them. ;) But I find Scheer's smile to be somewhat creepy, and more like a mask than anything else...
hi anon 2:41pm...hmmm...his Joker makeup? I think we might be able to work on that. And then turn his slogan "Why so serious?" into "Isn't crazy beautiful?" ;)
Post a Comment