75 YEARS AFTER AUSCHWITZ, THE CANADIAN HOLOCAUST CONTINUES
A host of Canada’s politicians have recently been falling over one another to observe the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. That was the location of the notorious World War 2 Nazi Death Camp in Poland. Ironically, for many years, those same politicians have cheerled a “Canadian Holocaust” which has resulted in severe damage, if not annihilation, to the careers of an undetermined very large number of White Canadian Males. It is quite possible that the total of White Canadian Male victims exceeds the number (6 million) of Jews who died in WW2.
Ironically, the Canadian “Holocaust” resulted from the work of Rosalie Abella who was born in a Displaced Person’s Camp in Stuttgart, Germany on July 1, 1946. Her Jewish parents survived the European Holocaust. Her family came to Canada as refugees in 1950.
She attended the University of Toronto and graduated from the University of Toronto Law School in 1970. She was appointed to the Ontario Family Court at the age of 29, the youngest person appointed to the judiciary in Canada.
She was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004. She is the first Jewish woman appointed to the Court.
In most people, such appointments would have evoked gratitude to Canada.
Instead, the opposite occurred. Her notoriety stems from her role as the sole Commissioner of the 1984 federal Royal Commission on Equality in Employment. That Report created the term and concept of “employment equity”. According to the Supreme Court web site, the theories of “equality” and “discrimination” that she developed in her Report were adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in its first decision dealing with equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1989. The report has been implemented by the governments of Canada, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and South Africa.
Dr. Martin Loney’s “The Pursuit of Division : Race, Gender and Preferential Hiring in Canada”, asserts in rigorous detail that her research and her conclusions lacked evidence. He concludes that her work has been extremely damaging to White Canadian Males. If Dr. Loney’s research is accurate, Canada and the countries which adopted Abella’s Report should have long ago revoked her recommendations and dismembered the multi-million dollar Preferential (Diversity) hiring industry which her Royal Commission Report kick-started.
Thousands claiming gender or racial group identity now make a living in the preferential hiring or “diversity training” industry. In Dr. Loney’s words, “Able-bodied white males may, in these politically-correct times, be the only group who can be caricatured with impunity.” (P.4) That industry has probably cost Canada billions of dollars.
In effect, Abella’s Report started a Canadian “Holocaust”. Dr. Loney does not use those words, but he does say that if some people were going to benefit from female and racial preference, others would suffer. The people who suffered from Abella’s arrogance and sloppy research were White Canadian Males. Dr. Loney does not provide an estimate of the number of White Males who suffered, but the number is probably very large and may well exceed the number of Jews who died in WW 2 Death Camps.
Furthermore, probably at least hundreds of thousands (and much more probably, millions) of Visible Minorities today occupy jobs that they should never have received.
What Canada has long needed is an equivalent to the Post WW2 Nuremberg Trials to deal with Abella and her allies.
Here are five important points Dr. Loney made in an article called “Judging Abella” :
1. What stands out is how much of Abella’s work is driven by feminist ideology and how little it is concerned with evidence.
2. According to her report, ‘dramatic changes’ were needed to allow women to participate in a full range of educational opportunities. This was a curious conclusion for her 1984 Report to make since by 1982 women were already the majority of university graduates and no less than 58 per cent of community college graduates. Today women are much more likely to obtain an undergraduate degree than their male counterparts.
3. Feminists see any earnings differentials or disparity in employment as proof of injustice. What is required, in contrast, is the careful comparison of those with similar profiles. Comparing the earnings of men and women is meaningless unless we take into account such factors as age, hours worked, qualifications, length of service and type of employment.
4. The inclusion of visible minorities in the Royal Commission’s mandate owed much to the American experience though the marked difference in the history of the two countries should have suggested more careful reflection. In the U.S., affirmative action programs have been driven by the desire to redress the legacy of slavery. Canada, in contrast, had few slaves and largely abolished the institution by the end of the eighteenth century. The overwhelming majority of visible minorities in Canada are free migrants. It is inconceivable that the U.S would have instituted a costly and divisive preferential hiring program to address the temporary adjustment difficulties of new immigrants, but that is precisely what the Abella report ushered in (in Canada).
5. The Royal Commission might have urged caution. After all, as one of its researchers warned, the absence of any definition of ‘visible minority’ and of related data prevented any assessment of the ‘social indicators of discrimination’. Abella was not to be deterred. Racism, she reported, ‘though sometimes inadvertent, is nevertheless pervasive’. The inadvertent racism was no doubt a fashionable reference to that mysterious virus ‘systemic discrimination’ which remains as widespread as it is ill defined.
For details, see The Pursuit of Division: Race, Gender and Preferential Hiring in Canada