PRESS RELEASE
The arrest of 17 Toronto area males on charges of planning to truck bomb, to open fire on crowded public places, to behead Canada's PM, to assault the Parliament Buildings and take hostages, and to storm the CBC headquarters in order to broadcast their demands nationally has grabbed the attention of Canadians and of people around the world.
Time will demonstrate how much danger these plans posed to Canada. What this event has already shown is that everyone finds it easy to understand bombs exploding on buses in London and trains in Madrid, planes crashing into buildings in New York; or the planned attacks in Ontario. However, other more subtle dangers seem to be harder to see.
No one wants to minimize the potential danger of these plots. But all of these actions (including the use of 3 tonnes of ammonium nitrate destined for bomb making) are trivial matters compared to the multiculturalism/diversity weapons that Canadians have been assaulted with for the past 15 years.
The result of multiculturalism and the “equality” it dispenses to everyone who arrives here is that it erases Canada's past. It creates the illusion to many who have recently arrived in large numbers that Canada's entire population has just arrived. Since we are supposedly all “recent arrivals”, it makes some think their group should have a cultural status equal to that of the long-term residents of Canada. It makes a number of them think that they are entitled to an instantaneous economic share of the country's resources.
It has actually resulted in legislation giving hiring preference to recent arrivals. If some individuals don't get what they want immediately (often because they and their credentials are surplus to Canada's needs), they learn they can resort to intimidation and claims of persecution. A number of Canadians, who seem to think that Canada is obligated to satisfy all such demands, encourage this behaviour. This has led to many absurd claims, including a recent cultural one to make Punjabi and Cantonese into two of Canada's official languages. It is uncertain how much Canada's “bending” has contributed to the attitudes of the Gang of 17. However, the damage already done to Canada by multiculturalism is probably far greater than that which this group could ever have precipitated.
Multiculturalism also extends its damage into the future. It is the artillery intended to soften Canada up so that it will continue to accept mass immigration. It wrongly tells Canadians that these high immigration levels are normal and necessary. It also tells Canadians that these numbers are indisputably good and it ignores the enormous demands that large numbers of new people make on the physical and social infrastructure of Canada. It twists the biological notion that bio-diversity produces health into the notion that cultural diversity will do the same thing. It ignores the reality that very large numbers of additional people have added significantly to the number of pollutants going onto the land and into the air and water of Canada's urban centres. The truth is that these areas have largely become human monocultures where humans have appropriated to themselves all the physical space available. Multi-species biological “diversity” and its truly healthy conditions have been destroyed. As urban Canadians see their living space become more and more pinched and degraded, they are told they should celebrate this situation. If long-term Canadians object to this disaster-in-progress, Canada's great “humanitarians” try to intimidate them into keeping quiet.
If the term “home-grown” is to be used, it can truly be used to describe these environmental, cultural, and economic plots. They are a far more serious threat to Canada than the plots of the 17 because their effects will extend far into the future. And the real trigger in these bomb plots is Canada's 15 year-old mass immigration policy.
The past and future destruction caused by these plots should be the focus of Canada's attention. The question many Canadians should be asking is this: When will our elected and non-elected officials give as much attention to these more subtle matters as they are now giving to the much more public planned attacks by the Gang of 17?
To give a 104 year perspective on the multiculturalism issue, Immigration Watch Canada provides comments from two sources. The 1901 comment gives an interesting cultural and economic look at immigration. The 2005 comment gives an economic and environmental look at immigration.
(1) 1901: Reverend Edwin Scott (Methodist Minister in Vancouver) testified to the “Royal Commission on Chinese and Japanese Immigration to British Columbia”. Speaking about a high intake of Chinese labourers, he said: “I suppose that no objection would be taken by any nation to the inhabitants of another country coming there in small numbers; then it would be perfectly right to care for them as Christians; but when it comes to an immigration by thousands, affecting the industrial work of the nation, then I think the national governments have a right to protect their people, and to send such a large number of aliens back to their own land.” (P.30)
“It is a different thing when small numbers of a foreign nation come here from that of a flood of aliens overrunning a small part of our great Dominion. If we could flood the labour market in China with thousands from America, there would be the same question on hand in China that you have here now….” (P.31)
(2) 2005: Mr. Gord Miller, Ontario's Environment Commissioner, assessed the environmental effects of a high intake of people to Southern Ontario in “Planning Our Landscape”, his 2005 annual report to the Ontario Legislature:
“One of the troubling aspects of the improved planning system is that it is still based on the assumption of continuous, rapid population growth. Government forecasts project that over the next 25 years, Ontario's population will increase from just over 12 million to 16.4 million or perhaps as high as 18 million. Three-quarters of these people are expected to settle in the urban area around Toronto and in the Greenbelt Lands. Even with higher development densities, this is a
vast number of people settling in an already-stressed landscape. Will the resulting demands for water, sewer systems, roads, utility corridors, aggregates and urban expansion leave our protected countryside and natural heritage systems intact? Will there be enough natural lands to support biodiversity?
“Why must the population grow at this rate in parts of southern Ontario? There are those that argue that such expansion is essential to support our consumptive economy. …. But is this true? There are prosperous European economies that thrive without a burgeoning population base.”
(Note: The largest factor in Ontario's population growth has been and will continue to be immigration.)
END OF PRESS RELEASE
