orite.icu

I am not a student of history but this is a bit of what I know. Canada was established via The Constitution Act, 1867, formerly the British North America Act, 1867. In July 1988, Canada enacted the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. At its core, the Act purports to preserve and enhance multiculturalism in Canada. The Act’s foreword also includes blurbs on protection and recognition of its citizens in conjunction with the Official Languages Act, Citizenship Act, and Canadian Human Rights Act.

Why did it take over 120 years for Canada to recognize and entrench notions of equality and freedoms? Is it because governments prior to 1988 didn’t believe in such values? Could it be that Canada’s own citizens didn’t believe in these values? On its face, it appears that the spirit of the Act is worth celebrating. But what does having an official Multiculturalism policy really achieve? The answer is that there are numerous reasons to consider why Canada’s biggest failing to date is ‘Multiculturalism’.

Canada’s political and bureaucratic failings in its Immigration policies are numerous. From its continued indifference towards the Aboriginals, to the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 1900s, to the Internment of Canadian-born Japanese during World War II, to the shameful rejection of the Komagata Maru, Canada’s political participation in anti-immigrant injustices is well documented. Some might suggest that this is history but this is precisely the point. As someone wisely noted, “Those who do not know their history, will be condemned to repeat it”.

The Multiculturalism Act continues to be an exercise in political pandering. It was enacted in response to a ratings game played by the G7 players where, once enacted, Canada could stake its claim as one of the few members who had an official multiculturalism policy. Good for international trade and good for global gamesmanship. The Act was also created to placate its citizens. We shouldn’t be surprised. Do Canadians really need unaccountable and pious policitians spending millions of tax dollars to convince the converted that Canada is unique because we have an official policy of tolerance and equality?

The Act has become a de facto weapon. An instrument wielded and abused by those who seek more than what it represents to offer. While many new Canadians swear the citizenship oath, many of these same new immigrants just as quickly dismiss their obligations by often hiding behind the Act to condemn and reject Canadian values of tolerance and inclusion by citing religious or other injustice. And Canadians just look the other way.
Unlike the Act, Citizenship is an obligation that every Canadian is required to uphold. Unfortunately, many choose to tarnish it by legitimizing their own selfish agendas under the guise of racism or discrimination to achieve their devious ends. And Canadians stand idly by to let this happen – we are, afterall, nice people.

Muliticulturalism does not have to be protected for it is understood, we are all different and we all should live harmoniously. Mulitculturalism should not be enhanced, not if it continues to divide and create ideological and literal ghettos.

Recently, a former Ontario Member of Parliament, Ruby Dhalla, attempted to circumvent the Canadian pension system just to get votes. In short, Dhalla, an East Indian (Indo Canadian), representing a riding of primarily East Indians, wanted to shorten the eligibility waiting period. The result would be vast numbers of recently arrived immigrants from India who are mainly aged, would receive pension almost immediately upon arrival instead of waiting, and contributing to the pension plans, as every working Canadian expects to. It was calculated that this could cost Canada tens of millions of dollars! If Dhalla even remotely attempted this in the U.S., she would suffer more than just the rebukes of even her own party members (there is no NRA in Canada). In Richmond, B.C., a shopping mall was ordered by the city to install signs that included English instead of solely Chinese script in the off chance an English-only speaking patron happened by.

Until a right-minded, forward-thinking, and selfless politician steps forward to pass legislation that requires new Canadians to attain a high proficiency level of English, or French; that requires new Canadians to assimilate into society by adhering to Judeo-Christian curriculum requirements without challenge to the Act(s); that requires new Canadians to truly respect the actual Laws of Canada without challenge to the Act(s), and that reminds new Canadians that citizenship is not an entitlement but must always be earned, then and only then, will Multiculturalism have a place of real value in Canadian legislation. Until this is achieved, abolish it.

It is shameful how new Canadians – a politically correct term for Immigrants, have made a patchwork of communities where little English or French is spoken and where education is conducted solely in their own tongue. Because many have consciously chosen to turn their backs on Canadian language, history, and culture, should there be a great surprise when a backlash of ill-will and stereotyping aimed at some new Canadians but interpreted as unprovoked institutional or societal discrimination or racism, occurs? When you point the finger at someone or something, how many fingers point back?

No, I am not a student of history. I am Canadian by birth, drink Tim Horton’s coffee, and love hockey. I am the proud grandson of a Chinese immigrant who emigrated to Canada in the early days of Canada’s birth; who worked as a tailor during the Gold Rush and who then became a farmer and raised a wonderful family. He paid his taxes, including the Head Tax, and never complained. He worked every day of his life for the betterment of himself and his family, often for mere pennies per day, and never complained. He EARNED his right to be a Canadian and many, including new Canadians as well as grandstanding politicians, need to heed this lesson.

—