Tag Archives: Canada

Canadian social workers misuse power to punish parents’ political views

“Freedom is the right to live in one’s own homeland in accordance with the laws and traditions of one’s ancestors.” –Ernst Arndt, Catechism for the Teutonic Armyman

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” –Thomas Jefferson

“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” –George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

“What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!” –Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Keep this. It will bring you luck.

This is getting serious, folks. The Canadian government is giving itself the right to take away the children of whites who hold “racist” views. Either you go along with the multiracial agenda of Canada’s overseers and teach your children to be obedient, self-hating, race-denying, politically-correct lemmings, or risk having them taken from you. There is no other word to describe this but tyranny.

For years I’ve been telling people that while I personally wouldn’t beat my children, the government has no right to interfere in how people raise their kids, and that by allowing the government to interfere in cases of corporal punishment, parents will ultimately lose all their rights to raise their children as they see fit. Well, that’s exactly what’s happening. This is what you get when you let women, with their misplaced maternal instincts, get hold of political power*, and is yet another example of why freedom and democracy don’t mix, popular belief notwithstanding.

I can see it now — daddy uses the word “faggot” around his kids, social services gets wind of it and takes the children away, since under Canada’s democratic nanny state, exposing kids to “homophobia” is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. If they’re lucky, the kids may even be placed with a homosexual foster couple, in whose home they’ll have the privilege of hearing mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy getting it on at night in the master bedroom. You think I’m exaggerating? There’s only one degree of seperation between having your kids taken away because you used the word “nigger” around them and having them taken away because you said the word “fag.” If the government is allowed to get away with this, the precedent will be set for the government to act the same way in any case involving politically incorrect speech.

Canadians, like Americans, like to make a show of how politically correct they are in public, but how PC are they in the privacy of their homes? For their sake, I hope the statements they make in private, in front of members of their family, match those of their public personas, because if they don’t, social services may hear about it and take their kids away.

This brings us one step closer to the world of “thought crime” depicted in the novel 1984. Canadians have no idea how close they are to the society that sent men like Solzhenitsyn to the Gulags. (Don’t even get me started on how much the United States is beginning to remind me of Canada since Obama the Marxist mulatto got put in power.)

If the child in this case had been black rather than white and had come to school wearing a T-shirt that said “black power” or “Nation of Islam” or bearing the name of a rapper that advocates violence against whites, what are the chances that social services would’ve reacted the same way? Slim, I bet. We’re all equal under the law, but some animals, you see, are more equal than others.

In the religion of political correctness, only whites, by definition, can be “racist.” Expressions of hatred or acts of violence towards whites by non-whites are excused and even applauded by the politically correct (who are almost all white) as “payback” for white racism. Poor whites are looked down on as “trailer trash” and are regularly mocked in the movies and on television, while astronomically high crime rates in non-white communities are explained away as the result of “systemic discrimination” against minorities and the unwillingness of rich white men to share their “ill-gotten” wealth with the “have-nots” (of course, the upper middle-class sociology professors who get paid big bucks to make these types of analyses never offer to pay for the social programs they demand out of their own salaries). Expressions of racial pride by non-whites are tolerated and even encouraged, no matter how viciously anti-white they are, while expressions of white pride, no matter how mild, are always labelled “hate” and are greeted with calls for the harshest of sanctions. Such is the hypocrisy of political correctness and the sick minds that peddle it.–Igor Alexander

* Note that besides women’s proclivity to vote for left-wing/liberal politicians, they are also vastly overrepresented in the social services.


Parents put blame on daughter for racist remarks, custody hearing told
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/05/26/mb-swastika-custody-hearing-winnipeg.html

A young girl’s head was shaved, and her parents described themselves as a skinhead family, court was told on Day 2 of a child custody hearing in Winnipeg.

The case involves a girl, now eight years old, who went to school with white supremacist symbols drawn on her skin. Her mother and stepfather, who are accused of racist teachings and failing to provide adequate care for their children, began a court battle for their children this week.

The girl and her brother have been in the care of the government’s Child and Family Services agency since March 2008, when the girl showed up in school with a swastika on her arm.

Her teacher scrubbed it off in the afternoon but the girl showed up again the next day with another one, along with other white supremacist symbols drawn on her body.

Neo-Nazi symbols and flags in family residence

Caseworkers were alerted and went to the family’s apartment, where they found neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and took custody of the couple’s two-year-old son. CFS officials picked up the daughter at her school.

The case has garnered international attention and sparked debate over how far parents can go to instill beliefs in their children — and how far the government should go to protect children from those beliefs.

On Monday, the social worker who initially interviewed the girl after she was taken into care testified the child was well versed in racist and hateful propaganda. None of the CFS workers can be identified in order to protect the identities of the children. [Nice. The cowardly busybodies who are doing this get to hide their identities under the guise of “protecting the children,” and hence remain unaccountable to the public for their actions.-IA]

The girl spoke of this being a white man’s world and provided graphic suggestions of how to kill people of colour, the worker testified.

Girl famous for lying: parents

On Tuesday, another social worker testified about her first meeting with the parents — about three weeks after the two children were apprehended.

They told the social worker their daughter often makes things up, and was famous for lying, the worker testified. The parents also said the girl had likely drawn some of the symbols on her body herself.

When the social worker asked why the girl was able to talk about certain things, like hurting people or killing people of colour, the stepfather said it was probably something she’d heard in a private conversation and was probably a joke, the hearing was told.

According to the social worker, the mother said she had no idea why her daughter would refer to them as skinheads.

But the social worker said extended family members later told her that the parents had shaved their heads, and the little girl’s, and described themselves as a skinhead family. [So what? Is there a law against being a skinhead?-IA]

Girl said stepdad brought in neo-Nazi views

Then she met the girl, who the social worker described as bright and articulate, even chatty. They met in the girl’s new foster home, where the girl was eager to show off her room, and her brother’s toys. [I guess this part was put into the article to show us, the stupid readers, how much better off the girl is with a foster family than with her biological mother.-IA]

The girl told the social worker that her mother used to read her stories but had stopped when she met and married a new man, the social worker testified. [Break out the violins.-IA]

“She was not a nice mommy anymore,” the social worker quoted the girl as saying.

The girl said she started missing school because her mom and stepdad didn’t wake her up on time. She told the social worker that her stepfather made the rules in the house, that he was angry and would get drunk, and that he didn’t make meals, or change her brother’s diaper often enough. [So now the social workers are getting into character assassination to deflect attention away from the fact that they abducted these children for political reasons. How many black kids have parents who get drunk, don’t make meals or change diapers often enough, don’t read their kids bedtime stories, and talk shit against white people? Lots, I’m sure. Now, how many of those black kids are put into foster homes? None, I bet. Kids are going to have a tough time in any family where there’s been a seperation or divorce, but that’s generally not seen as a reason to break that family up even further. Bottom line: social services is abusing its power to punish politically-incorrect speech and ideas.-IA]

The girl said she used to have non-white friends before her stepdad came along, but after he was in her life, the girl’s mother told her, “If you have a friend who’s not white, I won’t be your mom anymore,” the social worker testified. [And since when don’t parents have the right to tell their kids who they can and can’t hang out with? It’s not only the parents’ right, but arguably, their responsibility, to make sure their kid doesn’t fall in with the wrong crowd, and in this case, I’d say telling the daughter to not hang out with non-whites was a good call. Let’s be honest: how many white parents would be pleased if their daughter started hanging out with, say, blacks or American Indians? Not too many, I’d wager. Not only because few people relish the idea of having mixed-race grandchildren, but also because anyone with any life’s experience knows what the problems associated with those racial groups are: crime, violence, drugs, gangs, precocious sex leading to bastardy/illegitimacy and single motherhood, etc. What parent in his right mind would want that for his daughter?-IA]

Parents separated, each seeking sole custody

Testimony from child welfare officials and lawyers will continue through the week.

The hearing will adjourn but resume in June, when lawyers for the parents will make their arguments.

The parents no longer live together, and each has asked for custody of the children. The girl’s mother is not living in Manitoba anymore and has not been in court. Her lawyer’s request for an adjournment Monday morning was rejected.

She has said she can’t afford to travel but will attempt to when the parents have an opportunity to make their case next month.

The stepfather is in court and has filed a constitutional challenge, saying his right to freedom of expression, religion and association were violated when the children were apprehended. [I hope he wins, and that if he does, he sues the pants off of Child and Family Services.-IA]

The girl’s biological father has also been attending the hearing, sitting in the gallery and watching the proceedings. He told CBC News he hopes the children’s best interests won’t be overlooked in the rhetoric of political ideology.

[Incidentally, as regular readers of the taxpayer-funded CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) website will know, the CBC consistently slants its news coverage to fit a leftist/liberal agenda. In other words, the CBC isn’t in the business of responsible journalism, but rather, of disseminating propaganda. This story was a good illustration of that; notice how it subtly took the side of the social workers, quoting statements allegedly made by the little girl to tug on readers’ heartstrings, while villainizing the mother and stepfather. Is that balanced reporting? It’s not that non-state-funded media companies are any better, especially in light of who runs most of them, but it seems more overtly tyrannical when people are forced to pay taxes to be propagandized in this manner. But since the CBC’s biased news coverage is a rather large topic, perhaps I’ll leave it for another time.-IA]

Richard Warman

Just finished watching a documentary called David Icke: The Lizards and the Jews. You can view it online, or download it as a torrent. At about 39 minutes into the video, Richard Warman and his cronies say, “The only targets are the people who are so pompous and so full of themselves that they desperately need some public humiliation. How can you take anyone seriously when they have pie on their face?”

So now I’m wondering — when is Warman going to get a pie in the face? (Not that I would ever encourage someone to throw one, as hilarious as it would be 😉 )

Richard Warman

Dick Warman

Incidentally, the Jews know perfectly well that they’re descended from 12 foot reptiles, which is why they get so defensive when someone mentions it.

Feminists say “tough titty” to white males suffering from cystic fibrosis

The rainbow coalition of feminists, queers, Jews, blacks, browns, and leftists is forever trying to shove political correctness down our throats under the guise of promoting “equality” and preventing “discrimination,” but in the following story its true motivation — the blind hatred of heterosexual white gentile males — is naked for all to see. In the Orwellian doublespeak of the rainbow coalition, a call to end “discrimination” is really an invitation to discriminate against heterosexual white males. When a member of this coalition demands “equality,” what he/she/it is really after are special treatment and privileges. When members of this coalition talk about promoting “human rights,” what they really have in mind is depriving heterosexual white males of the rights of property, free speech, and free association. –Igor Alexander


Lesson in stupidity – Carleton’s student union quit its Shinerama fundraiser because cystic fibrosis affects mainly white people

http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1316835

OTTAWA – The Carleton student union’s decision to quit its Shinerama fundraiser because cystic fibrosis affects mainly white people is stupid and unfair, says CF sufferer Kelsey Lett.

Lett, 18, who has spent most of her life in hospital, says the disease doesn’t discriminate.

“I know white girls who have it. I know black guys who have it,” she said yesterday.

At a meeting Monday night, Carleton University Students Association councillors voted 22-2 in favour of quitting their long-standing FROSH week fundraiser and sponsoring another charity.

They supported a motion to stop Shinerama because, as the motion stated, they want fundraising to be “inclusive as possible,” and “CF has recently been revealed to affect white people and primarily men.” [Emphasis added. -IA]

The decision was based on misinformation, says the head of the Canadian CF Foundation.

“It’s the most common, fatal, genetic disease affecting young people in this country,” CEO Cathleen Morrison said.

“Hopefully people are making decisions based on information that is correct.”

Nick Bergamini, who voted against the motion, was shocked when he heard it.

“This does not reflect the views of Carleton students. These are the views of a few radicals who are playing politics with a charity,” he said.

Bergamini plans to put forward a motion to reverse the decision at the next monthly meeting, but he’s not optimistic.

Mark Steyn: The Canadian left vs the neo-con Jews

I’ve just been getting up to speed with this Mark Steyn affair:

What’s fascinating about this case is that Canadian Humans Rights Tribunals have for years been trying to deny people such as historical revisionists and white nationalists the right to express their views, and everyone has looked the other way. But now that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is trying to silence a Jew (*) who has been engaging in hate speech against Muslims, there’s a massive outcry about it! Funny how the media Jews didn’t seem to care about free speech until it suddenly occured to them that these hate speech laws could be turned around and used to silence them in their continued efforts to demonize Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians in order to drum up support for the Third World War they and their neo-conservative stooges are trying to start in the Middle East. If these media Jews are so concerned about our civil liberties, then where was all the handwringing about loss of free speech when Indian Chief David Ahenakew was being fined and humiliated by a Canadian court for making anti-Semitic remarks?

Jews were perfectly willing to support hate speech laws as long as those laws were serving Jewish interests. Now that those laws are becoming an impediment to Jewish interests (i.e., to getting the West embroiled in a protracted war against Islam), they want to get rid of them. It’s amazing how members of a group that makes up less than 2 or 3 per cent of the population always wind up setting the agenda for the rest of us.

Well, I shan’t complain. Getting rid of these tribunals and the associated hate speech laws, as well as dismantling the CHRC, would be a major step towards restoring free speech and due process in Canada, even if it’s being done for the wrong reasons.

Footnotes:
———-

(*) It should be perfectly obvious from his last name and the contents of his writings that Mark Steyn is a Jew. However, if this evidence doesn’t suffice, check out Steyn’s own FAQ:

“Mark is of Jewish descent, but was baptized a Catholic, confirmed an Anglican, and currently attends a small rural American Baptist Church.”

Don’t be fooled by Steyn’s BS that he’s a “Christian” of “Jewish descent.” Being Jewish is a matter of genes, not of religion. Those who claim otherwise are trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Environmentalists concerned that truth about global warming may be reaching students

Canadian schools sent brochures from climate change skeptics
by Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service
Published: Sunday, May 04, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=492240

OTTAWA — An American think tank has sent out more than 11,000 brochures and DVDs to Canadian schools urging them to teach their students that scientists are exaggerating how human activity is the driving force behind global warming.

The Chicago-based group, the Heartland Institute, said its goal is to ensure that students are provided with a “balanced” education about “an important and controversial issue,” but critics, including a leading climate scientist, described it as a campaign of misinformation.

The mail out, sent in February, included results from international surveys of climate scientists conducted in 1996 and 2003 along with a 10-minute DVD called Unstoppable Solar Cycles, The Real Story of Greenland.

“It took me a while to figure out what they were up to,” said Eric Betteridge, who teaches at Hillcrest High School in Ottawa.

The Heartland Institute says that it purchased a database list of addresses of 11,250 schools from across the country, including about 10,000 private or faith-based schools, for a massive mail campaign aimed at Canadian children in all provinces.

“All the kids in our schools are being taught that climate change is a serious crisis and that we’ve got to reduce our CO2 and they’re being taught (that) quite falsely,” said Jay Lehr, the science director at the Heartland Institute who sent the package. “We would like to educate people and basically give them the other side of the issue, so we send out materials only in hope of a little balance.”

The Sierra Club of Canada said that the Heartland Institute’s information was far from being balanced. [The Heartland Institute didn’t claim the information they were providing was balanced. They said they were providing the information in order to balance out the one-sided chicken-little environmentalist scare propaganda that’s being disseminated through the schools and the mainstream media. It’s not the same thing. The Heartland Institute has no more of an obligation to be “balanced” in its treatment of global warming than the Sierra Club does.-IA]

“It’s alarming that an American think tank is distributing misinformation on the most important issue of our time in Canadian schools, to actually create an illusion that there is a scientific debate,” said Emilie Moorhouse, a spokeswoman for the environmental group. [This has become the retort of choice for cowards and charlatans who are unwilling or unable to defend or substantiate their assertions. If you can’t beat your opponent in a debate, then just shut him out of it, or better yet, shut down debate altogether.-IA]

The Heartland Institute describes itself as a national nonprofit research and education organization whose mission is “to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets to a better job than government bureaucracies.”

The brochure and DVD said that scientists were “deeply divided” about “the notion that climate change is mostly the result of human activities.” It also suggested that the sun was the main factor behind recent warming recorded on the planet.

The package does not make reference to the conclusions reached by governments and scientists from around the world in their 2007 assessment of the latest peer-reviewed research on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in its summary of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning report that global warming is unequivocal and that there is a 90-per-cent chance it is being caused by humans.

After reviewing the Heartland Institute package, Mr. Betteridge said he was left feeling both amused and distressed that someone would try to promote this material to children in the classroom.

“I think I would be concerned because it was well written, and if somebody hadn’t been aware of what the general consensus is among climatologists about global warming, you would begin to think, ‘Wow, somebody’s giving me the wrong story here.”

John Stone, the senior Canadian researcher on the IPCC bureau, said that the 2007 assessment was cautious in its projections about impacts such as melting ice sheets among others.

“If anything, the IPCC assessments are conservative and this one (in 2007) was particularly conservative in hindsight,” said Mr. Stone. “Scientists don’t like to go out on a limb — they don’t like to be alarmist because they feel that they might be proven wrong.” [You can’t get much more alarmist than predicting the end of the world, which several of the IPCC scientist-priests have been doing publicly and with a great flair for drama.-IA]

The IPCC concluded that the contribution of solar variability to recent global warming was about a tenth of the impact of increased greenhouse gases, Mr. Stone said.

The Heartland Institute, which has received $791,000 in funding from Exxon-Mobil since 1998 according to a recent analysis by Greenpeace USA [And where do Greenpeace and the Sierra Club get their funding from, I wonder?-IA], also mailed out its package to 200 influential Canadian decision-makers, including Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

Moorhouse from the Sierra Club suggested that this might explain why the government has adopted climate change policies that were criticized for being soft on the oil and gas industry.

“It looks like they’re listening to the Heartland Institute and other oil-industry-sponsored think tanks and they’re following their curriculum rather than listening to the vast majority of what the scientific community is saying around the world,” she said. [It’s funny how some seem to believe that arriving at the truth is a democratic process. Don’t judge a theory on its merits, just judge it on how many adherents it has. If enough experts agree that the earth is flat, then the earth must indeed be flat.-IA]

A spokesperson for the Heartland Institute said that no company has ever contributed more than five per cent of the think tank’s total revenues and no industry sector contributed more than 10 per cent of its revenues.

“Nobody buys research,” said Dan Miller, the institute’s executive vice-president and publisher. “That isn’t the way it works. The funding follows the intellectual capacity, the intellectual integrity. It’s not the other way around.”

Although Flaherty’s office sent a letter of acknowledgment to the Heartland Institute confirming that the comments would be brought to the minister’s attention, spokesperson Chisholm Pothier said that the government is not taking advice from people who question climate change.

[Note: I will be putting together a list of articles, books, and videos which debunk the hypothesis of man-made global warming. Stay tuned.]

Canada: Are whites on the way to becoming a minority?

1 in 6 Canadians is a visible minority: StatsCan
South Asians top Chinese as largest visible minority group
CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/02/stats-immigration.html

One out of every six Canadians belongs to a visible minority group, thanks largely to the country’s growing South Asian population, the latest census figures show.

Statistics Canada, which released its 2006 numbers on visible minorities on Wednesday, said the number of people considered visible minorities topped five million (5,068,100) for the first time in census history. They made up 16.2 per cent of the total Canadian population, which was 31,612,897 in the 2006 census.

In the 2001 census, there were 3,983,800 people considered to belong to a visible minority, making up 13.4 per cent of the population.

The numbers were even lower in 1981, the year statistics on visible minorities were first counted as required by Canada’s Employment Equity Act. At that time, there were only 1.1 million visible minorities, representing 4.7 per cent of the total population.

Not only are visible minority numbers increasing, they’re increasing at a fast pace. Between 2001 and 2006, the visible minority population rose by 27.2 per cent, while the population as a whole only increased by 5.4 per cent.

Statistics Canada said that, at this pace, members of visible minority groups could account for roughly one-fifth of the total population by 2017.

Statistics Canada attributed the rising visible minority numbers to the high level of immigrants who have recently entered the country from non-European countries.

Sociologist Monica Boyd agreed with the theory.

“Immigration accounts for quite a bit, the vast majority, of that growth we see today,” said Boyd, a professor at the University of Toronto.

“Immigration counts for two-thirds of the population growth in Canada and if you have increasing intake of immigrants from countries other than Europe, you’re simply adding more and more diverse people into the Canadian population.”

Statistics Canada said that in 2006, 83.9 per cent of immigrants who landed in Canada in the five years prior to census numbers being collected were from regions outside of Europe. In 1981, the number was 68.5 per cent.

While not all recent immigrants who came from non-European countries are visible minorities, many are. When looking at all the recent immigrants in Canada in 2006 who hailed from both non-European and European regions, 75 per cent were visible minorities.

In 1981, only 55.5 per cent were from a visible minority group.

Statistics Canada defines a visible minority as “persons, other than Aboriginal Peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.” The definition is the same as that used by the Employment Equity Act.

South Asians, Chinese have biggest numbers

South Asians became Canada’s largest visible minority group in 2006, surpassing the Chinese.

According to the 2006 census, there are 1.3 million Canadians who identify themselves as South Asian, which includes countries like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. They represent 24.9 per cent of the visible minority population, and four per cent of the total Canadian population.

The 1.2 million Chinese make up 24 per cent of the visible minority population, and 3.9 per cent of the population in general.

The other large visible minority groups are:

  • Black (15.5 per cent of the visible minority population).
  • Filipino (8.1 per cent).
  • Latin American (6.0 per cent).
  • Arab (5.2 per cent).
  • Southeast Asian (4.7 per cent).
  • West Asian (3.1 per cent).
  • Korean (2.8 per cent).
  • Japanese (1.6 per cent).

I am Canadian

The census asked Canadians to identify the ethnic and cultural origins of their ancestors, with people allowed to pick multiple answers. Respondents gave a total of 223 different answers, the most frequent being: English, French, Scottish, German, Italian, Chinese, North American Indian, Ukrainian and Dutch.

But the most popular answer of all was Canadian. A total of 5.7 million Canadians said they were only Canadian, while 4.3 million said that part of their origin was Canadian.

In total, 32 per cent of Canadians called themselves Canadian, a decrease from the last census, when 39 per cent listed themselves as Canadian.

Mixed marriages rise by one-third

The census also found that the number of interracial marriages and unions rose by a third between 2001 and 2006.

Most of the mixed unions (85 per cent) counted in 2006 involved a person who is from a visible minority group and a person who is not, while 15 per cent involved two people from different visible minority groups.

“It’s a sign of the fact that those barriers, those social barriers between racial groups, are being chipped away at a little bit,” said sociologist Wendy Roth of the University of British Columbia.

“The rate of increase of mixed unions is not huge, but it’s steady, and the fact that it continues to be steady in different censuses suggests that those barriers are diminishing.”