Does Canada Want More Richmonds and Bramptons?


Canadian media, the politically correct and many politicians have had a field day this past week chattering about graffiti placed on a parkade wall in Richmond, B.C. As Canadians have seen so often before, the one thing that never fails to send these groups into contortions is the opportunity to play the race card. In return for expressing their self-righteousness, these people seem to think they should be awarded the Order of Canada or, at the very least, be given a medal. Before they go off on another tangent, they should take a look at some mitigating factors.

To illustrate the absence of any sense of proportion in these three groups, let’s look at one of those factors. The police have stated that the graffiti consisted principally of insults to police. One sentence read “F… the Chinese”. Yet the three groups have seized upon that one sentence to gather national attention.

Contrary to the impression that those 3 groups wanted to present, no mass murder had occurred. And no mass murderer was on the loose. An 18 year-old male, who probably wrote the graffiti, returned to the scene the following day and was arrested by local RCMP. Our media, particularly our CBC, has speculated that the perpetrators might be charged with a hate crime, but the RCMP has decided to settle for a charge of mischief. Of the 4 males and 1 female involved, so far only one youth has been ordered to appear in court.

A second mitigating factor appears if anyone speculates about the reasons the young people had for writing the graffiti. A look at the Richmond City’s web site illustrates that factor. In a section intended to compare Richmond demographically with other Metro Vancouver cities, Richmond officials have titled one section “How Does Richmond Compare?” Readers will see the following :

“Richmond has the largest percentage of residents who claim Chinese as their mother tongue and home language and likewise, the smallest percentage of residents who claim English as their mother tongue and home language compared to other municipalities in the Lower Mainland (Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley). This is an indication that Richmond residents are the most diverse in their mother tongue and home language in the Lower Mainland.”

Readers will probably experience logical malfunction when they read that last sentence. The writer uses the word “diverse” in the way high immigration-promoters use it. To them, becoming “diverse” is Canada’s new national goal. In typical “diversity” logic, the writer seems to say that being outnumbered by an immigrant group and having English reduced to a minority language is an achievement.

For the information of readers outside of British Columbia, Richmond is a city directly to the south of Vancouver. The two are separated by the Fraser river and are joined by several bridges. Richmond used to be a largely agricultural area, but much of its farmland has been converted to subdivisions. A primary reason for that is that like Vancouver and all surrounding cities, it has experienced very high immigration. It is no exaggeration to say that it has been culturally flooded and that it has become very congested. And like the municipal governments in other Metro cities, its own government sees nothing wrong with increasing its current population of 200,000 indefinitely.

A third mitigating factor appears if readers look elsewhere on Richmond’s web site. A graph shows the growth in the Chinese population of Richmond. Readers will note that people of Chinese origin represented about 15% of Richmond’s population in 1991. Figures for this year are not yet available, but it is generally estimated that Richmond’s population is now well over 50% Chinese. The increase has been dramatic for Richmond residents, particularly for those who are descendants of Canada’s founding groups.

Canada’s multiculturalists like to pay tribute to Canada’s First Nations but they do so mainly to disparage the efforts of Canada’s two other founding groups, its French and its English. That’s because one of the major purposes of multiculturalists is to erase Euro-Canadian history and diminish the right of Canada’s mainstream population to determine Canada’s immigration policy. For some time, mainstream Canadians have not been referred to as Canadians, but as Caucasians. From multiculturalists, Canadians usually hear such nonsense as “We are all immigrants”. The point is that all humans probably came out of the Olduvai Gorge in Africa. Since then, however, nation states (some young, some old) have developed. Time makes some residents of Canada “immigrants”. It has made others mainstream Canadians.

Of the mainstream, many of French and English background have been here for hundreds of years. That is, unlike some residents of Canada, they did not arrive yesterday. They are not immigrants. Furthermore, contrary to what multiculturalists like to think, because Canada was a colony, much of it was built on the foundations of its colonial masters, the French and English. Canada has a parliamentary government and a British legal system. Both are very different from those of the corrupt systems in many countries that recent immigrants come from. Canada is not a multi-lingual Babel of immigrant languages. It has only two official tongues : French and English. Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi, Arabic and others should never become official languages of Canada.

So, a very understated and reasonable question a Richmond resident of probable English background might ask is this : Isn’t it natural for people in Canada’s mainstream population (even when they are teenagers and are commenting immaturely) to express concern when they become a minority in their own community? A like resident of any other Canadian community having a similar experience would ask the same question. Even more to the point, isn’t it natural for anyone to express concern when a major demographic transformation is imposed upon Canadians by our federal government without any consultation whatsoever with Canadians?

Obviously, the young people who are involved are too young to have fully witnessed Richmond’s major demographic changes. But they did see a considerable part of the change. And undoubtedly, they have heard their parents, who probably witnessed all of the change, talk about the sudden inflow of very large numbers of Chinese immigrants.

If anyone reads the media accounts of the graffiti incident, the answer the media implies is that these young people, their parents and anyone else with similar views in Richmond or anywhere in Canada suffer from some mental disease and should not be allowed to even ask these important questions.

In fact, Canada’s CBC and most of its other media not only refuse to ask these questions themselves, but do all they can to make sure that no one else does either. In one interview that the host of CBC Radio’s “The Early Edition” conducted with Tung Chan, a representative of a Chinese immigration advocacy group, the Host sycophantically agreed with every complaint the Chinese advocate said. On the immigration issue, most CBC hosts act in the same way. In the interview, Chan had much to say.

“Why would they (the youths) make such kind of racist remarks?” Chan asked. “And why would they do those kinds of mischievous acts? It’s totally incomprehensible, but one that is totally unacceptable”.

“I would urge friends of those people, schoolmates of those people, wherever they go to school, their teachers, their parents, their friends, their neighbours, need to tell those people who perpetrate this crime that is not acceptable, that this kind of attitude totally has no place in a place like Richmond.”

On the same CBC Radio programme the next day, Tony Lau of the Richmond Asia Pacific Business Association re-iterated what Chan had said. “Where did these people get these ideas?”, Lau asked. In his view, these young people had to be “educated” and their attitudes had to be “stamped out”.

If Canadians had any doubts about the attitude of Tung Chan and Tony Lau to Canada, the words “incomprehensible”, “educated” and “stamped out” should convince them. Both clearly believe that there is nothing wrong with the abnormally high immigration levels that Canada has had since 1991. It is no hyperbole to ask : Would both also see nothing wrong with China using its grossly-excessive numbers to transform the demography of Tibet?

In contrast, many Canadians who are aware of the immigration issue think that by allowing so many immigrants to enter Canada, this country is committing suicide. They think reactions to what has occurred in Richmond and in other places are perfectly “comprehensible”. They think that if anyone should be “educated”, it should be Tung Chan, Tony Lau, the CBC, our private media and many others. They also think that these people can start their education by “stamping out” of their minds the nonsense that Canada’s multiculturalists, the CBC, and much of our media spread about immigration.

Mr. Chan’s immigrant-advocacy group is called SUCCESS. It says that its main purpose is to use the millions of dollars it gets from the federal government to achieve one goal : to help Chinese immigrants to integrate into Canadian society. However, it is clear from many statements that Chan has made that the real purposes of SUCCESS are to promote continued high levels of immigration (particularly Chinese), to declare that a defence of Canada against these high levels cannot be tolerated, to dilute Canada’s mainstream population, and to re-create “Richmonds” everywhere it can. Like them, the Sikhs want to recreate “Bramptons” in other locations. Other groups want to do similar things.

If one of the first steps in an invasion of a country is to take over (or infiltrate) the media, SUCCESS and other groups have clearly succeeded. There is absolutely no doubt that the CBC has virtually handed over its publicly–funded air time to SUCCESS and other immigrant advocacy groups. For a reason, we emphasize the phrase “publicly-funded”. When did the Canadian public give our obsequious CBC the OK to use public money to help SUCCESS and other parts of the immigration industry undermine Canada? As evidenced by equally sycophantic accounts of the graffiti incident in Canada’s private media, SUCCESS has had little difficulty in duping them also. Obviously, this has fostered a real arrogance in many recent immigrant groups. SUCCESS is one example of that arrogance.

Most Canadians will accept small groups of immigrants of every background, but most mainstream Canadians want Canada’s origins preserved. They do not want to be overwhelmed and replaced. The message lost in the inarticulate graffiti that teenagers left on the Richmond Parkade wall is that post-1990 immigration levels are a clear abnormality in Canada’s immigration history. And the message is not just about the Chinese, but about many other groups who have come in very large numbers since 1990. And, as we have pointed out many times, the most important message is that our federal government has never provided a sensible reason for bringing in such large numbers of immigrants.

Canada will continue to have the cowardly among our politicians, media, and the politically correct salivate whenever the immigration bell rings. Dr. Pavlov would have been interested in examining the brains of these people. Eventually, as justice prevails, Canada will hold these characters to account. The sooner that occurs, the better.

In the meantime, many Canadians with backbone feel that our country is being betrayed. And they demand that our government put a stop to the immigration-driven betrayal.