Subsidizing Suppression, Betrayal and Deceit At The CBC

Subsidizing Suppression, Betrayal and Deceit At The CBC

A few years ago, a 16-year old Chinese girl from Taiwan innocently asked a teacher at a Vancouver school: “Sir, why did you move here? It's all Chinese!”

This is quite an amazing question.

The student was not aware that the teacher was born in Canada, and that his ancestors had arrived here about 200 years ago. She also did not have much knowledge of early or more recent Canadian history. In particular, she did not know that most of the Chinese she saw around her were recent arrivals, the result of Canada adopting in 1990 the highest continual per capita immigrant intake in the world.

The main point she wanted to make was that she was clearly embarrassed for the teacher that he was a minority in a large group of Chinese. In the previous 10 years, at least a dozen other students had expressed the same sentiment to him.

It would seem logical to discuss and ask questions about a culture being overwhelmed by new arrivals. But Canada's CBC, which should provide a forum for such issues, has told us that the immigration flood can be only a positive thing and that we should celebrate it. In fact, CBC employees will often proclaim, “We are diverse”, as if to say that surrendering and managing the inflow are the only things that can be done.

The CBC's notions of “diverse” and “diversity” are not high points in human thought.

They have been appropriated from biology where they describe the healthy state that results when an ecosystem contains a variety of forms of life.

However, as the Taiwanese student pointed out, the area that she lived in looked more like a huge ethnic monoculture—as do other areas of the country that have experienced the human inflow of the past 16 years. And like most large monocultures, when added to the host human culture, it had destroyed much of the biological diversity in the area into which it had poured.

Like the CBC, a number of the private media should not be excused for their own timidity in leading a national forum on the immigration issue. But the CBC, as a publicly-funded institution, has an even greater obligation to inquire, inform and promote a discussion about such major changes to the country. So to be blunt, why has the CBC done all it can to stifle a discussion of mass immigration? Or to put the matter another way, why has it gone out of its way to promote mass immigration?

The answer for the CBC is that two of its commitments, one to “multiculturalism” and another to “balance”, are in complete conflict. The CBC does not define “multiculturalism”. But it is clear that it means more than being fair to people of different backgrounds. It is also clear that the CBC believes that its support of “multiculturalism” is more important than its support for “balance”.

To most Canadians, the term “multicultural” means that Canada has a multi-ethnic make-up. Most accept some immigration and most will also treat everyone here fairly. But many question our high immigration levels.

At the CBC, no questioning is tolerated from within or without.
In fact, eminent Canadian editor, Robert Fulford has humourously referred to the CBC as “a herd of independent thinkers”. He has described it as a group unable to admit that a thought different from one of its own could possibly have some value.

When the CBC thinks of multiculturalism, it foggily equates “multiculturalism” with a continuation of the immigration status quo. The CBC never asks whether Canada needs or can effectively absorb these huge inflows of people, currently around 260,000 per year.

At the CBC, the policy of portraying immigration in a completely positive way means that it refuses to give air time to large numbers of Canadians who want to voice concern about the negative effects of immigration. Driving a fist into the faces of Canadians is strange behaviour indeed from a group that daily holds its other hand out for public funds.

If Canadians want proof that this is how the CBC thinks and acts on the immigration issue, they simply have to ask themselves this question: When have I heard any CBC news item or discussion which is critical of immigration's cultural, economic or environmental effects on Canada? Anyone answering the question honestly will say : Seldom.

The logical and very damning question that has to be asked is this: How can the CBC expect Canadians to trust it if, in effect, it suppresses most news or discussion of the negative effects of a sudden and unending inflow of people?

Furthermore, the problem does not end with suppression. It is CBC policy to obscure the truth about current immigration by suggesting that there are few differences between immigration of the past and present.

The CBC's notion of “Multiculturalism” insidiously implies that Canada has no host population, and that we all arrived virtually yesterday. The historical reality that First Nations, French and English were here hundreds of years ago is clouded. So is the legitimate right of these groups to establish any pattern for future settlement.

Moreover, our CBC implies not only that recent arrivals have no obligation to integrate but also that they should be the prime movers in setting the country's immigration agenda.

If any differences are noted between past and present, they are intended to induce a walk down Absolution Avenue which, it turns out, has no end. The CBC reduces Canadian history to a series of victimization episodes. The main intent of this tactic is to weaken resistance to high immigration. The CBC implies that the host population is obligated to the role of perpetual penitent—-clothed in sackcloth, and engaged in self-flagellation.

In other areas, the CBC has done very good work. And, undoubtedly, some CBC employees disagree with the CBC's policy on immigration. But many are mere iconoclasts against all immigration authority and seem to think it is a journalistic accomplishment to know virtually nothing about the entire immigration issue and to disseminate their bias and ignorance at public expense.

It gets worse. CBC producers have made agreements with immigration organizations who have literally built “immigration service” empires as a result of the high immigration inflow. The goal of these empires is to maintain themselves and to expand. To them, the good of Canada is irrelevant.

The CBC interviews these people and promotes their events. In return, the organizations display the CBC logo on their materials. During these interviews, CBC reporters remain silent about arrogant advocacy statements such as “No one is illegal”, “Canada would not be a white country today if the Komagata Maru had been allowed to dock”, etc.

True to form, the CBC refuses to allow anyone the time to refute these absurdities or to say that the agreements between it and the immigration industry are blatantly corrupt.

The one-sided presentation continues.

A recent announcement by Radio Canada International (RCI) states that it has requested the publisher of “The Canadian Immigrant”, to host a weekly short programme during which he answers questions submitted by potential immigrants.

The publisher came to Canada 8 years ago and undoubtedly has advice to give to people thinking of coming here. But he is an immigration advocate who has profitted financially from his business. For many years, the CBC has had a ban on radio advertising. Indirectly or not, it should not be offering any businessman free advertising time.

What broader things have to be done to correct the shameful behaviour of the CBC?

In the interests of Canada and general integrity, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should order the CBC Chairman and CBC executives to appear before it. The CBC should be compelled to answer the charge that its commitment to multiculturalism and mass immigration is incompatible with balanced, honest journalism.

According to the organization called “Friends of Canadian Broadcasting”, the parliamentary committee on Canadian Heritage “appears to agree that the CBC has lost its way”. Nowhere is this more evident than on the immigration issue. In this area, the CBC has completely ignored the fact that the Canadian public subsidizes it and that the work done by the CBC has been deceitful and unbalanced.

For the Standing Committe on Canadian Heritage to take such action would not constitute interference with journalists' freedom. On the contrary, it would be a matter of government correcting widespread abuse of power in a publicly-funded institution.

The parliamentary committee should make it clear to the CBC Chairman and all of its employees that the CBC's immigration advocacy and its corrupt “arrangements” with the immigration industry are unacceptable.

If such CBC behaviour continues, the committee should announce that CBC funding will be re-examined and a number of CBC employees will be directed to look for alternate employment.

For a long time, the CBC has gotten away with treating many Canadians with contempt. It deserves a blunt response.

That seems to be the only way it will learn.