The Speech the Thugs Prevented Jared Taylor from Delivering

Is Racial Diversity Good for Canada?

by Jared Taylor

Last November, Prof. David Divine of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, agreed to meet Jared Taylor in a debate on whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness. Late in December, he backed out of his agreement, claiming he had been unaware of Mr. Taylor's background, and was now unwilling to let him speak. AR secured a venue in Halifax, where Jared Taylor planned to give the following talk on Jan. 16, the day after Prof. Divine gave his. On Jan. 16, before Mr. Taylor could even be introduced, 20 or 30 demonstrators filed into the room, and began shouting and beating on pots and pans. This went on for perhaps 20 minutes until a group of perhaps six men surrounded Mr. Taylor at the podium and, linking arms, forced him from the room. Demonstrators also destroyed copies of American Renaissance that Mr. Taylor had prepared for distribution. These are the remarks Mr. Taylor had planned to give. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. As I believe you all know, this meeting became necessary after Professor David Divine of Dalhousie University backed out of an agreement to have a public debate with me on the question: "Racial Diversity: North America's Strength or Weakness." On December 21, he announced that after looking into my background, he decided to turn the debate into a monologue, in other words, to have a discussion about diversity in which diversity of opinions was not allowed. The place and time had been set. The university had even designed a spiffy poster advertising the debate. But no, a debate with me "would not be a useful way to explore the topic."

A poster that was never used. Prof. Divine said that as part of his monologue he would be kind enough to summarize my views for the audience - and then explain why they are wrong. How he proposed to summarize my views without hearing them is a mystery to me, but that makes his job a bit easier, doesn't it? Rather than face a real opponent, he wanted to set up a straw man to knock down. I contacted him early this month to tell him I was coming to Halifax anyway. I urged him to stick to his agreement and debate me. I pointed out that if my ideas are wrong he should have no trouble refuting them. He refused to meet me. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe Prof. Divine is a coward. I think he is afraid to face a serious opponent in a serious debate on the subject of what amounts to the state religion of Canada: the assertion that multiculturalism and racial diversity are great strengths for a country. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe Prof. Divine is a coward. I think he is afraid to face a serious opponent.

And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that an assertion - a belief - is all it is. How, exactly, is racial diversity a strength for Canada or any other country? Does it raise per capita GNP? Does it improve crop yields? Does it lower crime rates? Does it reduce green house gasses? Does it lower taxes? No, it doesn't do any of those things. I'm not sure I have ever heard its boosters say specifically what it does. I will tell you what racial diversity does: It results in conflict, tension, and hostility. At its worst, racial diversity can lead to race riots, racially-motivated murder and assault. At its best, when communities of different races try to live together they simply leave each other alone. The result is relatively peaceful voluntary segregation. Except for a few bohemians, people of different races do not often mingle naturally and happily.

Prof. David Divine. Think honestly about your own lives. How racially diverse are your dinner parties, your ski outings, your church services, your backyard barbecues? If racial diversity were a strength, people would be drawn to it naturally. They would mix spontaneously with people unlike themselves. And yet, they do not. They do not because racial diversity is not a strength. It is a source of tension and conflict. People may submit to racial diversity in their public lives but turn their backs on it in their private lives. Now, you probably think that every major Canadian institution from the federal government on down takes the view that racial diversity is a great strength for Canada. In fact, they all agree with me. They all assert most emphatically that racial diversity is not a source of strength but a source of conflict. The only difference is that instead of the word "conflict," they use the word "racism." Whatever "racism" may be, they all agree that it is a very bad thing, and that Canadian society is riddled with it. Now, if there were no racial diversity in Canada, there could be no racial discrimination, could there? So please remember this: Whenever people complain about racism, bigotry, hatred, racial profiling, discrimination, they are not talking about the joys and benefits of racial diversity. They are admitting that it is a source of tension and suffering. To repeat, your government and institutions agree with me, not with Prof. Divine. That is why every province and territory has two major bureaucracies that fight racism: a Human Rights Commission and a Human Rights Tribunal. Then there is the federal Human Rights Commission - 200 people work for it full-time - the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada, and dozens more city and local bureaucracies fighting racism. Every university has an office for fighting racism. And that's not enough. The Canadian UNESCO Commission wants to establish a Canadian Coalition of Municipalities Against Racism. Saint Paul University in Ottawa wants what it calls a National Justice Initiative Against Racism and Hate. In 2005, the federal government launched Canada's Action Plan Against Racism, which was to spend $56 million over the next five years combating racism. You have Parliamentary Committees on Visible Minorities and Standing Committees on Multiculturalism. It's hard to keep up with all the bureaucrats whose job it is to sniff out racism and eradicate it. None of this would be necessary were there no racial diversity in Canada.

Dalhousie University. How bad is the race problem? The Ontario Human Rights Commission says "Racial discrimination and racism" are "pervasive and continuing." The Canadian Race Relations Foundation says "racism is serious and pervasive." The Canadian Commission for UNESCO says racism "imperils democracy." The federal Human Rights Commission says "hate and, in particular, its manifestation on the Internet pose a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society." How can racial diversity be a strength if it gives rise to something that "imperils democracy" that "poses a serious threat to the social fabric of Canadian society?" This question deserves an answer, ladies and gentlemen, but because Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me, I'm afraid it will not get one. In fact, I suspect Prof. Divine is afraid to debate me because he knows this question has no answer. Let's go back to Ontario, where there is the most racial diversity in Canada, and where we should therefore find the most strength. Try a search on the web site for the government of Ontario on the word "racism" and see how many hits you get. I got 4,852 when I tried it in December. And I didn't even try "discrimination," "bigotry," or "hatred," or any number of other promising terms. The Ontario Human Rights Commission hears 700 to 800 racial discrimination cases every year. Each case takes an average of a little over a year to finish, and the commission is so overworked it has a backlog, despite its $13 million annual budget and staff of 130. And remember: Although the Ontario commission may be the busiest, every province and territory has one, and there is one for the federal government, too. Right here in Nova Scotia, the Human Rights Commission sponsors a forum every year that "examines the challenges being faced by different racial groups in maintaining and defining their identities in an increasingly complex world." It also sponsors a series of breakfasts called "Champions of the Workplace," where employers "discuss successes and challenges related to managing inclusion within their workforces." If diversity is such a strength I wonder why it has to be "managed," why there are "challenges," and why it takes "champions of the workplace" to make it work. The Nova Scotia commission also offers "workshops on issues surrounding diversity, discrimination, race relations, and harassment." Why does something that is a great strength require workshops? In Nova Scotia you have an entire ministry devoted to blacks - whom it calls African-Nova Scotians. Why do you need that ministry if racial diversity is a strength? The city of Halifax itself is abuzz with worries about racism. Just search the Dalhousie University web site for "racism" and you will get hundreds and hundreds of hits. Here are some of the results I got: Racism within the health care system; Racism in the criminal justice system; The racism inherent in white civilization; Racism in Shakespeare's The Tempest; Everyday racism in medical school; The systemic racism that is prevalent in Nova Scotia; Contemporary Representations of Racism in Children's Books; Racism, Birth Control and Reproductive Rights; Racism and Science Fiction; Thinking More Creatively About Racism and How to Tackle It; Systemic racism affects every aspect of our daily lives; Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. By golly, it's everywhere. And this is just a tiny sample of the stuff that's on the Dalhousie site. Dahousie even has what's called a Black Student Advising Center. It offers diversity and sensitivity training. It sponsors a special graduation ceremony for black students. It issues a bi-weekly paper called AfricVoice. The paper's motto is "Informing, Inspiring, Empowering," and each issue starts with an African proverb. "Stop profiling our young Black brothers as being drug dealers and pimps ..." says the Nov. 10 issue from last year. The centre even gives black students something called "The Black Student Advising Centre Survival Guide."

Survival guide? Why is all this special hand-holding necessary if racial diversity is a strength? The city of Halifax recently had a classic demonstration of the disadvantages of racial diversity. The local paper, the Chronicle Herald, reports that Education Minister Karen Casey just fired the entire Halifax School Board. Why? According to the paper's Dec. 20th issue, "Ms. Casey's decision came after a recent shouting match among about a half-dozen members that involved accusations of racism. 'Collectively, they are not able to work together in the best interest of students,' she said." So it appears that racism is a very considerable scourge in Canada, but it is reassuring to know that commissions and tribunals and study groups and associations and foundations are beavering away night and day fighting it. They'll soon have it under control, right? Well, maybe not. A recent survey by Statistics Canada found that, nearly 50 percent of blacks say they have suffered from discrimination or unfair treatment, as have 33 percent of South Asians and Chinese. (No report by StatCan on whether any Whites suffer from racism.) A 2003 report on immigrants living in West Central Toronto found that 68 percent had suffered just from housing discrimination, let alone any other kind of discrimination. In 2004 the Dominion Institute did a big poll and found that 65 percent of Canadians said that over the past five years there has been no change in the level of racism in their communities. Thirteen percent said racism had decreased but 17 percent said there was more of it than five years ago. Is Canada losing the fight against racism? That would seem to be the message of this survey, which was, ironically enough, taken to mark International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Coming to a city near you? And then there is the report York University wrote for the city of Toronto in 2000 about race, housing, and poverty. "There are huge levels of inequality," explained the author Michael Ornstein, "and they are very strongly correlated with ethnoracial characteristics." Carol Tator, a Toronto-based academic seems to think you are losing the fight, too. The Dec. 24 issue of your local paper, the Chronicle Herald, quotes her as saying, "The problem of racial profiling in Canada both historically and currently is a national crisis across this country." And it is not as though the fight against racism only just got started. You have been battling it longer than we have in America. The first modern anti-racist legislation in Canada was Ontario's Racial Discrimination Act of 1944. We didn't have anything like that at the state or federal level in 1944. Ontario banned racial discrimination in employment in 1951, and by 1960 every province had passed similar bans. We didn't get a national ban until 1964. You have comprehensive anti-racism legislation at provincial and federal levels - you've had it for decades. You even have a Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, part of whose job is to fight discrimination. And yet the battle still rages. Let us accept, for a moment, the lefty view of all this, namely that racism - whatever that may be - is a moral failing that afflicts only Whites. Non-Whites - every man, woman and child - are noble, unoffending sufferers, whose sole aim is to be accepted as the loyal Canadians they are. Parenthetically, this seems to be the view of all your human rights commissions, too, but no matter. If this view is correct, it means Whites are a uniquely defective people who break out in helpless spasms of racism whenever they encounter non-Whites. But if that is true, why must Whites - and their non-White victims - be put through the ordeal of racial diversity? If, after decades of combating racism whites are still hopelessly racist, what is gained by an immigration policy that brings in yet more non-Whites only to make them suffer at the hands of Whites, and that degrades whites by bringing out the worst in them? Toronto used to be virtually all-White. There couldn't have been much racial discrimination. Now, all official sources agree that Toronto is a hive of racial discrimination. How has racial diversity therefore been a strength for Toronto or for Canada? This, therefore, is one problem with racial diversity. The races don't seem to get along very well. Just look at all this agonizing and hand-wringing over racism. You may choose to blame all the problems exclusively on wicked White people, but why pretend racial diversity is a strength? There is a second aspect of racial diversity on which Canada is strangely silent. Have the non-Whites who are coming and who are increasing racial diversity improved the country? I realize this is a taboo question, but let us ask it anyway. One of the unpleasant consequences of racial diversity is that Whites, at any rate, have to be very careful about how they talk. In 2005 the chief economist of CIBC World Markets Jeff Rubin was spanked and sent for sensitivity training when he wrote that oil prices would double by 2010 because "this time around there won't be any tap that some appeased mullah or sheik can suddenly turn back on." Writing about "sheiks" apparently upset the Islamic lobby.

'Kemosabe' means 'trusted friend.' But I think the "Kemosabe" case was more interesting. As you will recall, that is what Tonto called the Lone Ranger in the TV series. Well, right here in Nova Scotia, your Human Rights Commission worked itself into a lather when a Mi'kmaq lady named Dorothy Moore said her boss called her Kemosabe. He called everyone Kemosabe, but she took offense. The commission appointed a board of inquiry to look into the complaint. It watched a bunch of Lone Ranger reruns and concluded in Feb. 2004, that first, Kemosabe is not an insult, and that Ms. Moore hadn't clearly shown she was offended by being called Kemosabe. The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission was determined that "Kemosabe" be found racist and demeaning. It appealed the board of inquiry's decision to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The court agreed with the board, namely that Miss Moore hadn't proven the word was an insult, but the human rights commission still would not give up. It took the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada! The Supreme Court had better things to do than watch reruns of "The Lone Ranger," and refused to take the case. "We're disappointed," said Mayann Francis, head of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. "We thought this case might help establish clearer guidelines for dealing with discrimination and the cultural differences one finds in a diverse workplace." Ladies and gentlemen. If this is the sort of thing you get from a "diverse workplace" who needs it? The Supreme Court did, however, take up the question of whether Sikh students can wear ceremonial daggers to school. The Montreal school board didn't want students running around with knives, but the Supreme Court said they could, as a matter of religious freedom. The Supreme Court does not yet appear to be involved, but back in 2005 your federal Justice Department helped fund a year-long, $150,000 study of polygamy. Last year it announced its recommendations. It said there are already so many polygamous Muslims in the country that Canada should get rid of its laws banning polygamy. Go with the flow. Make bigamy legal. Do bigamists and kids with daggers make Canada a better place? Or are we even allowed to ask questions like that? Without diversity, these questions would not arise.

Toronto now reaping all the benefits of racial diversity. Let's return for a moment to the subject of speaking freely. Let's talk abut White flight. There was a 2004 Toronto Star article about a new Statistics Canada report on the appearance of visible minority neighborhoods in Canada's big cities. Whites used to live in these places but they have moved out. According to the Toronto Star, StatCan could not bring itself to use the term "White flight," and wrote only about "rapid replacement." Well, someone apparently wasn't told about how we are now supposed to talk. That same year, 2004, Toronto city councilman from Scarborough Mike Del Grande told his local paper that "a lot of White people are moving out" of his ward. Another councilman immediately jumped on Mr. Del Grande: "To hear someone say White people are leaving and Chinese are coming in can be nothing other than a racist comment," said Joe Mihevc. Poor Mr. Del Grande had to apologize: "I should have said many older residents of the community (are moving out)," he said. "I didn't say it in a politically correct way." Now, what is going on when a city councilman says something that is obviously true, is accused of racism, and is forced to say he should have spoken in code rather than speak clearly? You can't even describe what is going on before your very eyes, much less talk about why Whites are leaving and whether they might even be justified in leaving. This doesn't sound like a strength to me. The vice principal of Queens University unbosomed what strikes me as a significant truth about Canada. Recently he was quoted as saying, "Our Canadian culture has been squeamish about gathering race-based statistics because no one wants to see ethnic makeup reduced to numbers on a page. But unless you get this kind of information, you don't really know if you have a problem." Well, yes. How do you even begin to assess whether racial diversity is a strength or a weakness unless you gather the information. Do different groups have different rates of illegitimacy? School failure? Poverty? If they do, does it make sense to add to those groups through immigration? Take crime data. I understand Canada does not keep records of racial differences in crime rates. Too squeamish, I suppose. And yet everyone knows some groups commit more crime than others. Your newspapers talk about it indirectly. This is from the Canadian Press of December 24, 2005: Cities like Vancouver and Toronto have been rocked by a wave of gang violence in recent years. Almost 100 men in rival Indo-Canadian gangs in Vancouver have been murdered since 1994, often execution-style, over drug deals gone bad. Toronto's gang violence, on the other hand, often involving gun-wielding young Black men, has escalated to the point that a coalition of African-Canadians recently called on Prime Minister Paul Martin to declare the issue a national crisis. Of the more than 70 murders in the Toronto area so far this year, a large portion of them have involved gang members - as many as 30 in the Black community and many others among Asian, Latino and Tamil gangs, said Tony Warr, Toronto's deputy police chief. Here's the Globe and Mail of Oct. 17, 2005, telling us that on a per capita basis Winnipeg has become the murder capital of Canada. "Most of the victims of violent crime are aboriginals, Third World immigrants, gang members, homeless people or transients. Winnipeg's West End ... has long been in thrall to a gang known as the Mad Cowz, made up mostly of young African immigrants, many in their teens." In the Vancouver paper The Province, issue of Oct. 21, 2005, we read, "A violent ethnic war between Filipino and Vietnamese youths in the Lower Mainland will likely escalate, Vancouver police said yesterday." Here is a March 16, 2006 story in the Calgary Sun, with the headline: "Feared Gang Hits Calgary." A gang of white people? No. It is MS 13 from El Salvador. In 2005, Black violence got so bad in Toronto that one councilman, Michael Thompson, urged the police to pull over young Blacks randomly and see if they were armed. Mr. Thompson said this wasn't racial profiling, but that "the police now have got to take measures - drastic measures." There was criticism of this, of course, but Mr. Thompson was not hounded out of polite society as you might suspect. He is Black and thus enjoys the benefits of protective coloring. Now, as we saw, Canada is too squeamish to collect crime statistics by race, but the United States is not. We know, for example, that Blacks commit robbery and murder at approximately eight to ten times the white rate, that Hispanics commit these crimes at three to four times the white rate. Hispanics are 19 times more likely than Whites to be in youth gangs, and Blacks are 18 times more likely. I would suspect there are equally striking racial differences in Canada, but no one knows because the government doesn't want to know.

We find yet another interesting diversity issue in the case of Toronto's now-defunct zero-tolerance policy on crimes in schools. Students were committing so much robbery, drug dealing, sexual assault, and weapons violations that in 2000 the province passed the Safe Schools Act, requiring that any student guilty of these offences be expelled or suspended. Just four years later the province had to drop the policy. Why? Non-Whites were being expelled and suspended all out of proportion to their numbers. More than 1,000 children under the age of seven had been suspended - for things like robbery, weapons possession and drug dealing - and the majority were Black. So Toronto had to junk the zero-tolerance policy. This story illuminates two things: First, we learn that non-Whites were the major source of the problem; you did not have a rash of crimes like this when the schools were overwhelmingly White. Second, a sensible, non-discriminatory solution had to be ditched because non-Whites were getting more of their share of the punishment. Here, racial diversity both caused the problem and made it impossible to apply an obvious solution. While we're on the subject of Toronto schools, in 2005, a Black school board member proposed setting up an all-black school. Lloyd McKell, who had the title of executive officer of student and community equity, said all-Black schools might be a necessary way to fight high dropout and expulsion rates. Just last April right here in Halifax, a Black educator named Wade Smith said integrated schools were doing such a poor job with Blacks that he thought Halifax needs a school just for Blacks. I thought segregation was supposed to be bad for Blacks. Now, it turns out integration is bad for Blacks. Racial diversity seems to be very tricky business, indeed. Back to Toronto, in 2005, a coalition of 22 Black community groups - but let's stop right there. A coalition of 22 Black community groups? Twenty-two race based associations? What do they all do? Why are they needed? Why are they racially exclusive? How many more are there that are not part of this coalition? Are they all glorying in the strengths of racial diversity? Anyway, a Toronto Star article begins like this: "A Toronto coalition of 22 Black community groups disgusted by gun murders in the city wants a separate set of rules and institutions for Blacks - from a government department to a diversion program for minor crimes."

Zanana Akande. The article then quotes Zanana Akande, a former principal and an Ontario cabinet minister in Bob Rae's NDP government. She says: "Blacks have now reached the point of such disgust, such frustration, such a feeling of rejection ... that well-trained, well-qualified, capable people have given up and said, 'You know what? Maybe we should have our own [institutions]'." The article continues: "Margaret Parsons, executive director of the African Canadian Legal Clinic went further, saying Canada's vaunted policy of multi-culturalism has blinded authorities to systemic racism against Blacks, even as they adopt policies of inclusion and integration." The White man just can't get it right. Here he is, adopting policies of inclusion and integration, but they only blind him to systemic racism against Blacks. And we are still supposed to believe racial diversity is a strength? Outright segregation makes White people nervous so, according to the Toronto Star of last July 19, Blacks will have to settle for a new "Africentric" curriculum that is supposed to boost Black pride and improve grades. There is even going to be Africentric math, with a unit on racial profiling. Does anyone think that will really improve grades? Of course, now you have a bit of a problem with Muslims, too. In a July 25, 2006 article from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, we get another revealing headline: "Study: Conflict Likely Between Canada, Its Muslim Citizens." But maybe that shouldn't be surprising. Last summer police arrested a group of young Muslims - "homegrown terrorists" you have been calling them - who were going to storm the Canadian Parliament, hold politicians hostage, and maybe even behead the prime minister. According to the Globe and Mail of last June 29, the wives of the four main conspirators shared "among other things, their passion for holy war, disgust at virtually every aspect of non-Muslim society and a hatred of Canada." Maybe we shouldn't be surprised if Canadians don't care for this. At the same time, so many of Toronto's Muslims were taking their children out of classes that were supposed to teach them the right attitude toward homosexuals that Ontario's prime minister got involved. In 2004, Dalton McGuinty issued a personal plea to Muslim parents to let their children take these classes. Diversity seems to be tricky for all sorts of reasons.

Another source of strength gone bad. So far, I haven't said anything about Canada's oldest experiment with racial diversity, which is relations between Whites and aboriginals. If diversity is a strength, this one should be well developed because it has been around the longest. Somehow, it doesn't seem that way. It was news even in the United States when Indians took over the town of Caledonia, Ontario, which they claimed was on their land, and chased out the White man. Maclean's magazine warns of more to come. An article from just last December 27 begins like this: "Canada should brace for more dramatic displays of aboriginal defiance in 2007, warn native leaders who say the First Nations frustrations that boiled over in a small Ontario town this year may well be a tipping point for decades of simmering aboriginal anger." Decades of simmering aboriginal anger. It sounds like another source of strength gone bad. On the very day of the cited Maclean's article, the Mohawk Nation News wrote: "Don't get any ideas that we will become Canadians. No way! We can and will handle our own affairs. So get out of our way while the going is good. Canada, you know, everything belongs to us. We're getting it all back." So what are we to conclude from all this? Ladies and gentlemen, let us face facts squarely. Racial diversity in Canada, just as it is in America, is an ordeal. Sometimes, a difficult, agonizing ordeal. It is a source of resentment, guilt-mongering, and endless charges of racism. If it were a strength, non-White groups would not set up countless race-based organizations to protect and advance their interests. If it were a strength, no one would need diversity managers or sensitivity training. If it were a strength, Canadians would not naturally separate on racial lines. Take a look around the world. Wherever people are killing each other most diligently, they are killing each other because of diversity. The Tutsis and Hutus slaughtered each other because of ethnic differences. The Tamils and Sinhalese slaughter each other in Sri Lanka because of religious and ethnic differences. Arabs and Blacks slaughter each other in Darfur because of racial and religious reasons. Arabs and Israelis slaughter each other because of ethnic and religious differences.

Orwell was on to something. The Soviet Union broke up because of racial and ethnic differences. So did Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Zimbabwe is expelling White farmers only because they are White. Diversity of the kind Canada is promoting is one of the most obviously divisive forces on the planet. To keep jabbering, as Canadians are supposed to do, that diversity is strength is like repeating the three official government slogans from George Orwell's 1984. Let me remind you what they were: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. "Diversity is strength" fits right in, doesn't it? And to add to the Orwellian atmosphere, I must point out that Canada has laws against free speech that touch on this very subject. All I have done this evening is quote government sources and read newspaper articles, and yet several people warned me that for giving this talk I could be arrested for "inciting racial hatred." Others said that as an American I could be turned away at the border for the same reason. Isn't this exactly what desperate, totalitarian regimes do? Promote lies and then punish people who speak the truth? We are living in dangerous times, ladies and gentlemen. If your government will lie to you about this, what will it lie about next? If it forbids dissent on this subject, what will it forbid next? With your immigration and multi-culturalist policies you are dicing with the future of your country. If there is even a small chance that by replacing European Canadians with Third-World Canadians you will end up with a Third-World country, do you not owe it to your children and grandchildren to think seriously about the demographic future of your country? There are those who would prefer that you never think about this. That you remain ignorant of any dissenting argument about race. It was in order to keep you ignorant that I was shut out of yesterday's event. But as Orwell warned, just as freedom is not slavery, ignorance is not strength.

 

 

VDARE.COM - http://www.vdare.com/misc/050329_mcinnes.htm

March 29, 2005

Jared Taylor Meets Canada’s Multicultural Madrassa —Almost

By  Gavin Miles McInnes

I moved to Ottawa, Canada in 1976 as a very young Englishman with a father who was invited to help the Canucks with their non-existent high tech industry.

Within weeks I had my posh British accent pounded out of me and was able to say "How’s it goin’, eh?" with the best of them.

When Canada instituted its refugee-friendly Immigration Act of 1978, few refugees seemed to take them up on the offer. There were not, to paraphrase Pat Buchanan, a thousand Zulus set to compete for assimilation with a thousand of us Englishmen.

There were millions of East Indians though. Their well-educated parents were brought in for the same reasons mine were. Each of my classes had about three or four. Sure, we would rib Rajiv for his funny name and his accent, but he played hockey and liked Def Leppard so we quickly forgot he had difficulty sunburning.

In 1984, my brother Kyle was born into a very different Ottawa. The Immigration Act had successfully taken the emphasis away from what immigrants can do for our country and placed it all on what our country can do for immigrants. More importantly, Canada had decided "assimilation" sounded like "melting pot" and that was for those ugly Americans south of the border.

You see, Canadian identity hinges on everything that is anti-American. So it was decided that Canada would become the most anti-melting pot country the world’s ever seen.

It worked. Today it’s hard to find a Torontonian that doesn’t puff out his chest and proudly bleat his city is "literally the most culturally diverse city on earth."

Unfortunately, the only way Canadians could convince themselves diversity-based immigration works was to turn a blind eye to its downsides. Anything goes, consequences be damned! The Mounties can wear turbans, Sikh boxers can leave their beards untrimmed. And Toronto youths can carry their ceremonial daggers to school African refugees can flush their passports down the toilet on the plane ride over, make up a name when they get to the airport and they’re on the street in an hour. All they have to do is promise (cross your heart, hope to die) to come back for a hearing in a few weeks.

The local stories are more of the same. At my father’s pub, an Ottawa City Transpo bus driver tells me how maintenance often has to hose down the blood in his bus at the end of the night due to the Somali gang knife fights. "Why don’t you read about that in the [Ottawa] Citizen?" he says furiously. On September 12th, 2001 my mother (an adult education teacher whose students are about a third Muslim refugees) came in to work only to notice: "plane bomb star of David skull" spelt out in gigantic Wingdings font on several computers (QMYN). []

She wasn’t shocked. Other teachers had casually mentioned similar symbols on their computers and chalkboards every time the anniversary of the Six Day War rolled around. Canada had become so tolerant of other cultures that it now tolerates people who are intolerant. Her students made it very clear they had no allegiance to any country whatsoever. Their allegiance was to Islam.

My brother’s academic life was similar. The high school cafeteria was divided into Arab, black, Chinese and white. The Arabs (mostly Lebanese) hated the whites and fights often broke out including one incident where the police were called in and an Arab youth stabbed a teacher in the arm with a sharpened pencil. When my brother caught a Somalian (a "Mali" as they were called) stealing his skateboard a fight broke out that bled into lunch hour. Minutes later a mini van of the Somalian’s entire family roared into the parking lot. Again the police were called.

Finding documentation of all this is virtually impossible. Each incident is documented as "notes" that follow that specific teacher to whatever school he goes to next. Even when you do track down the teacher that was there, no record of ethnicity is documented because the administration is petrified of lawsuits. The understood code: "gang conflict" means "ethnic conflict."

And of course, the local papers never report anything about ethnic conflict. Ethnic conflict does not exist in Canada.

My old Alma Mata, Ottawa’s Carleton University, has also been changed drastically in the past 20 years.

CKCU, the college radio station founded by Dan Akroyd used to be a place you could hear, well, college radio. Today we get at least two hours a day of shows like "Voice of Somalia," "Tinig Pinjoy" and "Asian Sounds." When I was at the school newspaper there were still traces of 70s irreverence when editor’s photos were simply a penis with sunglasses on them. By the mid 90s the only pubic hair you’d see in the paper was when they were banning my magazine, Vice, on campus. Today the paper is so sterile it reads like a multicultural trade journal.

And what’s worse, my old campus pub Rooster’s has been converted into an alcohol free bar where Muslim students can enjoy the western college experience without the pesky assimilation that goes with it.

Recently, when my brother paid his tuition for the University of Ottawa he couldn’t help but notice that two pro-"diversity" student groups, OPIRG, the Ontario Public Interest Research Group, and International House, were raking in over $151,296 per semester. That means by the time Kyle graduates, he and his peers will have spent over $1.2 million promoting diversity.

Or more specifically, stifling anti-diversity. Kyle has just organized a talk wherein American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor would travel up from the Great Satan and look at the cons of this multicultural utopia we all took for granted. After all, the school had shelled out $20,000 to hear Ralph Nader talk about the joys of diversity.

Were they willing to give Jared Taylor plane fare? Or could he talk for free?

The short answer: no.

"When I first brought it up with The Community Life Board [the people who organize the talks] they were thrilled," my brother told me just after Christmas. "They said ethnic tension and diversity is the most pressing issue on campus today. Pierre Brault, the director of The Community Life Services still had a broken wooden coat hanger in his office that had been used as a weapon at a recent debate between two ethnic groups (he refused to tell me which ones). It still had dried blood on it."

We put together a flyer for the event and called it "The Problems With Diversity."

That was a mistake.

"When people found out we were not going to be blindly praising multiculturalism everything changed," my brother said. "After that I couldn’t catch a break."

Kiavash Najafi [email him] from the Political Studies student association made it clear to my brother that, even if his group approved, Kiavash would personally, physically, do everything in his power to shut the talk down.

Bob Kimberley, the president of the Communications Students association, told my brother he feared Taylor would sound too eloquent. Even if students asked questions, he argued, they wouldn’t sound as smart as Taylor and that would create an "unfair balance of power."

Caroline Andrew, the dean of the faculty of social sciences [email her], told Kyle she "can't support the talk" because she "doesn't agree with Jared Taylor's origins and links."

The strangest response however came from OPIRG member Mohammad Akram [email him], who sent Kyle a long letter. Sample quotes:

"The word diversity is given by human being. All human being wants to live not die. The immigrant came from other country same like your four fathers to live here .... Just think how you are enjoying the rainbow with seven color. The idea of Jared Taylor is not ideal for present modern, intellectual & highly advanced society … You know the German history killing of Jews by Germany/Hitler. These are all anti human act. If we will promote the Idea of Jared Taylor sure a time will come in future people will fight tog her just for color supremacy … Canada is the best country of the world. like India. where we have beauty & unity in Diversity."

Nice to know.

The University of Ottawa administration automatically assumed that discussing the downside of diversity, multiculturalism and mass immigration was tantamount to touting white supremacy.

My brother vainly asked sound questions like: Is Michelle Malkin a white supremacist for defending racial profiling in her book In Defense of Internment? Was liberal demigod Zora Neale Hurston a white supremacist for promoting segregation? Are anti-immigration activists Terry Anderson and Juan Mann white supremacists? Were the blacks at issues-views.com who rail against affirmative action, reparations, the idea of "hate crimes" and immigration white supremacists?

For that matter, If they want to attack supremacism, why don’t they talk about the fascist, racial agenda of La Raza? Or even the Islamists in our midst today who see the Jews as "dogs."  Or the patriotic Israelis that have no problem with the fact that they live in the most segregated place on earth.

When I published an article in the Ottawa Xpress [Banned in Canada, March 17, 2005] criticizing the school for making thinking a challenge instead of challenging students to think, the Ottawa U administration smugly responded that I was mistaken—they had never banned Taylor. Sure—they pulled the old Canadian bureaucratic trick of humming and hawing until the date of the talk had passed.

As I write this my brother is hopelessly trying to reschedule. And he keeps running into the same "I have to talk to this person and that person" trick. He reschedules a date and they delay him until it passes.

Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker was recently asked if he thought Harvard president Larry Summers’ comments about men being better at science and math were "within the pale of legitimate discourse."

He replied, "Good grief, shouldn't everything be within the pale of legitimate discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That's the difference between a university and a madrassa."

Canadian universities today lean more to the madrassa side.

There is one form of diversity they will not tolerate—and that is a diversity of opinion.

Gavin Miles McInnes [email him] is one of the founders of Vice Magazine, [not work-safe] which will certainly be too diverse for some VDARE.COM readers. The opinions expressed here are solely those of Gavin Miles McInnes. They do not represent the views of his employer, Vice Magazine, its editorial board or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.

 

 

www.amren.com/.../2005/03/jared_taylor_me.php

Comments

No college or university ever seems to want to listen to Mr. Taylors’ opinion. I wonder why? I can recall several events, in the past, where he has not been welcomed. Could it be that people are afraid of the truth?

People in this country live in a pipe dream. For example; I was watching a local news broadcast recently, and the reporter was interviewing a white woman, approximately, 55 yrs. old. The subject matter was the minuteman project along the Mexican border. When asked her opinion, her reply was, “Armed white supremacists patrolling the border is scary!”

The thing that is “scary” is two-fold. First, that she sees the people trying to protect their own land as being “white supremacists”, and the second thing is she doesn’t understand the magnitude of the Mexican migration. She will not understand it until it is too late.

Too many people in this country are like the three monkeys, “Hear no evil, See no evil, Speak no evil.” They are afraid to face the truth.

Posted by Ironmike at 6:11 PM on March 30

Can Liberals be educated? Can CANADIAN Liberals be educated?This article has to be a prank. There is no way a Liberal would admit that multiracialism adversely effects their ability to express themselves. Wait — would they?
Hopefully I’m wrong. As a Canadian I hope Mr McInnes is sincere in his courting of Jared Taylor, but I am still VERY suspicious. McInnes is a brilliant guy, however, he gives off a bit of a Andy Kaufman vibe. Either way, he’s got grapes! Which is certainly rare for a White Liberal.

Posted by Kevro at 6:31 PM on March 30

I sent Dr. Andrew a rather critical message about the lack of intellectual freedom at her institution. I am an alumnus of the University of Toronto and said that, had they done the same, I would never contribute to them again. Will let you all know what if any response I receive.

Posted by Aristotle at 6:49 PM on March 30

“Bob Kimberley, the president of the Communications Students association, told my brother he feared Taylor would sound too eloquent. Even if students asked questions, he argued, they wouldn’t sound as smart as Taylor and that would create an ‘unfair balance of power.’”

I found this to be the most interesting and hopeful statement in the entire article! Why, John PM, why, you ask? Well, this would be because Comrade Kimberley is more-or-less admitting defeat before the battle has even been fought! He is not, like the rambling and inarticulate Mohammad Akram, denouncing Mr. Taylor as an inhuman and unacceptable “racist” but is instead acknowledging him to be “eloquent.” Odd indeed, that a speaker is banned for being “too eloquent”? No, not really, it is however, an admission that Mr. Taylor armed with reason, facts, and intelligence would utterly demolish any of the robotic and maudlin Multi Cult idiocies, the Diversitoids would have to spew at him. In short, an confession of weakness!


In the end, every cloud has a silver lining; by not allowing Mr. Taylor to speak, they are admitting that he panics them, not because he is a “racist” but because his position is correct regarding their failed fantasy that, “diversity is strength.” While I find this censoring of Mr. Taylor disgusting, I am braced by the fact that such censoring only demonstrates the fear that the Communist enemy harbors, that their “unfair balance of power” is about to be cast onto “the ash heap of history.”

God Let It Be So!


 

Posted by John PM at 7:40 PM on March 30

All hail the new world order .

Posted by bonesmen at 7:40 PM on March 30

Mr. McInnes is generally correct in his assessments of the City of Ottawa and the two universities : one «generally» uni-lingual (English),- Carleton, the other «officially» Bi-lingual (French and English)- l`université d`Ottawa.
His statements about the violence in the «Transpo» Mass Transit system is generally without fault. If a little highly coloured. The critical issue related to the violence on the buses concerns the nearly absolute media blackout in the local newspapers and radio/television networks : «The Ottawa Citizen,» and the CBC/CTV audio video media. It is, apparently, an current and on-going crisis; but the media, under orders from the governments (all levels, municipal, provincial, federal), refuse to comment upon it.

I believe that in one instance, about a year ago, or last summer, there was an reference to a bus driver who was profiled in the «Citizen» subsequent to having been attacked and hospitalized. As I recall, he stated then that such incidents occurred regularly; and that the Transit Company (but, of course, not only they) covered it up.

I have some experience in the courts, as well, as a law student, and, in my opinion, there appears to be an «behind the scenes» policy to reduce the number of non-White offenders before the Bar. This is very significant, as it would have to require collusion and conspiracy between the Crown`s Office, public and private defense attorney`s and, of course, the so-called «police.» Who are relentlessly politicized at any rate.

The municipal (city) government would have to be involved, as well. The «City Council has an number of representatives and appended sub-committees with treat «police services,» and «community outreach.» They would have to be involved, too. I have no proof, Individuals who work at the courts have denied the validity of my observations, but I nevertheles believe that it is happening.

What I have noticed about the multiculturalists I have met in the campus concerns their curious «schizophrenic» attitude toward the «diversity» they prize so highly; and without which policy, they (or their parents) would never have been allowed into this country. While they praise it, they tend «not» to practice it to any great degree.

I was once introduced to an individual, homosexual, and Asian, who praised the diversity of Metro Toronto. But, he himself did not live, despite it`s «glittering» «gay» «nightlife.» He lived in Hull, the rather dowdy, somewhat down at heel francophone «appendage» to Ottawa, which is still (somewhat) less diverse than Ottawa itself. And, another individual to whom I was introduced, an Chinese student, from the Mainland, told me that he hated Toronto - because of the number of East Indians. Indeed, I cannot myself recall the last time I met someone from Toronto, who was «not» East Indian. All of the Indians in the Law School, most on the Common Law side of faculty, are from Toronto. The only exception is a young women in Civil Law (my faculty), whose family arrived in Canada in 1989 - from Lithuania. Apparently, she rarely goes «home.»

One final note, I would advise Mr. McInnes to retain legal counsel, so-called «Protection Services» may well have opened a file on him. As someone to «watch.» I would advise him to demand the release of all material bearing or referencing his name, immediately. And, if his demande is ignored, to inform «Protection Services» of his intention to seek the release of this matter per writ of subpoena.

Posted by David A. Kyne, bac., (hon)., maîtrise at 7:57 PM on March 30

I had no idea that Canada had fallen to such depths. From the articles I read and from what I glean from television the place resembles Nazi Germany in the 1930’s. I use to think hosers were nice people, and many of them are, at least on the outside. It’s hard to think of them as Nazi’s or Soviet apparatchiks…secure the border now!!

Posted by Yosemite Sam at 8:59 PM on March 30

When they won’t let you speak your mind, they’re scared. They’re scared of others listening to your opinions and AGREEING with you.
Jared Taylor has ‘em on the run!

Posted by Miss Fitt at 9:15 PM on March 30

With respect to demographics, “Diversity” is a code word for “as few whites as possible, preferably none”. With respect to opinion, its a code word for “as little that is other than ultra-left-liberal as possible, preferable none”.

Posted by Larry at 9:20 PM on March 30


“You see, Canadian identity hinges on everything that is anti-American. “

As one who lives in Buffalo just across from Canada, I have been saying this for years. Canadians are desperate NOT to be Americans and anything they believe Americans do wrong (health care, wars, racial intolerance), Canadians will do the exact opposite with vim, vigor, and gusto.

If Americans are racist, then Canadians will be anti-racists. If Americans dislike immigrants, Canadians will embrace them by the millions. If Americans have a racist past, Canadians will atone for their racist sins and make amends to everyone they have “wronged”.

Yes, Canada IS the anti-America. Consequently, they will succumb before us. If we’re lucky, we in the States can learn from THEIR mistakes and we can be the anti-Canada.

Posted by sbuffalonative at 1:28 AM on March 31

Canada as a whole, and especially the cultural elites practise the worst form of group-think. They think that by always having the same opinion, ignoring reality, and always methaphorically taking the moral high-ground, that they can reshape reality into a fantasy-like dreamland. This is not the first time such as thing has happened to cultural elites - ex. Eastern Europe and communism - but it is perphaps the first time that the fantasy is so firmly engrained.

The Canadian government has made a devil’s pact with the worst sort of human elements to sell-ou their population majority for a free ride of excess. The process has not yet played out fully, and the corruption has not come to its final stage, so things appear to working. And that is in fact the most common answer you get in Canada when you discuss Multiculturalism in its full breadth: “It is working, so why question it?”

I live in Ottawa, and I grew up in Toronto, and I have made a few observations The things to understand about Canada are the following:
-The Demographic change has been so rapid that no one has had time to contemplate, yet alone feel the impact.

-There is a fast growing divide between urban and rural (like the States) driven by the fast demographic changes.

-WASP Politicians in Canada still think it’s 1955 and they represent a solid, growing majority - totally overlooking any external threats.

-French are still playing the ethnic card not realizing that they will be surpassed by the Chinese within a short time frame as the number one minority. Quebec itself is changing rapidly with an influx of Middle Easterns and other Asians.

-The young elites in Canada are bought off perhaps like no other elites in the world. Canada is controlled by very centralized money that does not allow any room for ANY realistic demographic discussions. Most of young Canadian conservatives are neo-conservatives, and this is considered extreme right here (even though it is really left) - especially by the large goveremnet apparatus which engages in constant group think.

-Canada pays a huge price by always wanting to be the moral compass of the world. This allows the corruption to happen more easily because all leadership categories are held to unrealistic standards. Of course Whites reside at the bottom of this Moral Mountain.

-Anti-White actions are considered patriotic.

-If I sit down with Whites here and start asking the right questions, and wording things a little differntly I get a very diffent outlook on things then the official line from the MAJORITY of Whites. Whites have lost most sense of understanding their rights or what it means to survive in this world, but when they are shown a few things they still respond. The worst nightmare of the anti-White bigots are Whites who expose things.

Basically all the things that hold true in the States hold true here in Canada, except thing are worse here: more corrupt, more anti-White, more groupthink-like, less rebellious, more double-standards, faster demographic changes, more aggressive non-Whites.

Our anti-White propaganda Matrix is much more effective - those Canadians who see this please: fight the anti-White propaganda Matrix and its evil.

And that is Canada and multi-culturalism in a nutshell. Like John PM is fond of saying: God help us all.

Posted by Tom Peters at 1:44 AM on March 31

In Toronto and close to, diversity is on a daily and predictable rampage. Third world youth stab, steal, sell drugs,rape and damage common and personal property. On the receiving end is the white population as expected.. The newspapers are full of it.The Toronto Star however avoids descriptions of wanted culprits as it pertains to obvious colour.The Toronto Police report website is an eye opening instrument. Without our “diversity” we would have about 85% less crime, the cities budget would be balanced in no time at all.But we still import this diverisity like it is fashionable.

Posted by H.Schneider at 4:16 AM on March 31

Typical institutionalized top down control. Universities are bureaucracies that have been installed by Corporate elites whose political characteristics are Right Wing. The apparant dichotomy of Right wing Corporate elites promoting radical Left wing universities is not surprising. This dichotomy should show us that our democratic self governance is an illusion. The attack on traditional self governance values is GLOBAL. Quantitative analysis is replaced with crude dichotomies. This trend is not an accident, it has been carefully constructed for many years, incrementally flushing any reference to nationalism and sovereignty down the “Memory Hole”. Universities do not want Mr.Taylor to speak at their universities because he can quantitavely refute their carefully constructed dichotomies.

How could an average citizen inherently weak in quantitative reasoning refute installed all encompassing words like Racist, Bigot,or simple questions like “America is a nation of immigrants isn’t it?” or “I thought Liberal was a good thing” and my favorite “Why do you care what color your children are?”
These questions and many more are intentionally simple because they require lengthy historical references to refute.

The people targeted by Elites on the Right and the Left are subliminally aware of what is happening to them. Their Governors are aware of this and will stop at nothing to prevent any “snapping of fingers” by Mr. Taylor to wake any of their precious SHEEP.

Posted by scott at 7:08 AM on March 31

II find this quite amusing. At my university in Canada they charge $10 per term for a PIRG. The group is a communist front-no exaggeration-and they collect over $60000 a year from students. I learned, only recently, that I could opt out from the fee and I did so last semester. I actually had to explain why I was opting out and a fat slob secretary at the registrar asked begrudgingly “don’t you support composting?”. I pretended to ignore the comment and went to get my refund at the PIRG office. The communist lesbian [with cornrows and a cold sore on her lip] asked me why I wanted a refund and I responded because you are communists and I ended up in this country because of communism. She replied well we offer a wide range of services for all people. I said really, well what services do you offer? She replied we have a library of books students can take out. So I turned around to look and said Karl Marx and lesbians is what you call a diversity of ideas? I said name one book to the right side of socialist on this shelf and she replied I can’t right now. So I left and got a refund in the mail a week later. I actually look forward to engaging these sickos every four months and hope they ask for an explanation every time.

Here is a link for their library on the net. Quite comical isn’t it? Lenin for beginners anyone?

http://pgpirg.unbc.ca/booka.htm
 

Posted by James at 2:30 PM on March 31

As one poster remarked, the French, who pride themselves
on realism, are totally out to lunch in Quebec. They think that

language is more primary than race. So if they worry at all, it’s

that their precious French Culture might be lost in the immigrnat

horde. What they want is a French speaking multiculturism wiht

immigrants from Haiti or French speaking Africa. Talk about pet-

ty! Anything to keep the fight going with English speakers. Many

may live to rue their folly. For one thing, culture is far more

than language; exposure to French speaking Negroes should prove

that. Secondly, as the poster pointed out, the rate of change is

beyond belief. And it’s favoring South and East Asians not their

beloved Black Frenchies. All their little squabbles and concerns

are for naught; their culture as well as the English Culture,

will be swept away by the dark flood.

Posted by Lugh at 12:17 AM on April 1

James, that’s typical of big American universities as well. In some cases students have successfully gotten the “activity fee” (or whatever it happens to be called) removed, but often students have to ask for their money back, as you did. Inevitably the money goes to fringe-left activities, groups and speakers.

Posted by Cassiodorus at 10:55 AM on April 1

This article gave me warm fuzzies like few others have on this web site - however, the reason will not be apparent to most.

I was puzzled when I first read who wrote the article. I’m getting a little past the age when I would know about such things (I’m 31) but my understanding of VICE Magazine is that it is more or less the bible of urban degenerates, also known as “hipsters”. These are kids of ambiguous sexual orientation who generally wear retro clothes, hang out in dance and rock clubs, and have a fondness for cocaine. Cursed with overly philological educations and overexposure to post-whatever philosophy, their political opinions (if they have opinions on anything besides bands) contain equal amounts of moral relativism and cluelessness. In short, I would expect a piece extolling the virtues of group sex from the founder of “VICE”, not something defending Jared Taylor - but then something clicked.

I realized that I can’t be the only younger-leaning adult who has become convinced that not all is well in the United States of Babel. In my case, it was a reading of Gould’s fatally flawed “The Mismeasure of Man”. When Gould stated that there are no inhernet differences in human intelligence across individuals or groups, I found it to be so ridiculous that I laughed out loud and I naturally sought out all contrary evidence as a matter of intellectual duty. This led me to Jensen, Rushton, Richard Lynn, and (probably most importantly) Samuel Francis.

In the year 2005, what thinkers are truly rebels? The tweedy 60’s artifacts who pen editorials for The Nation, or people like Jared Taylor and Samuel Francis? The fact is that the latter represent about the only real alternative to the mainstream in this day and age. Neoconservatives and liberals are really just two sides of the same coin. There’s nothing more conformist than reading Howard Zinn if you’re 20 years old - but what about Spengler or Stoddard?

As liberal egaltiarian values become more mainstream, more entrenched, and more untenable with every passing year, it could very well be that those pre-disposed to a contrarian or “hipster” mindset could very well find themselves gravitating towards the worldview of their great grandparents. I realize this is a long shot at best: but then again, it makes more sense than the current hipster obsession with 1980’s pop culture.

Posted by Revelation 20:9 at 11:58 PM on April 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised: November 05, 2014 .   Communication:   JerryHaff1963(at)gmail.com     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the
Disclaimer
Last modified: November 05, 2014  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].   www.gnosticliberationfront.com