Back in June, the organisers of the Canadian Immigration Report (CIR) were invited to appear as witnesses before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to present arguments in support of Bill C-31, also known as the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act. The bill, sponsored by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, is aimed at introducing important changes in the refugee system in order to cut down the number of bogus claims. The CIR witnesses were scheduled to make a ten-minute opening presentation and answer questions from Committee members of the rest of the hour.
After being rescheduled six times, the meeting was finally to take place on Wednesday 26 September. The following day, the CIR reported:
We made the long drive to Parliament Hill and just a moment after entering the meeting room, a clerk informed us that our time had been given to someone else and that we were not to appear before the committee.
After leaving the room, journalists who were already apprised of the situation informed us that the topic of our presentation was deemed inappropriate and had several screen captures of our website on hand.
It seems the Liberal and New Democratic Party (NDP) members of the Committee acted to exclude the CIR witnesses from the debate. According to CBC News,
[a]t the meeting’s outset, NDP immigration critic Jinny Sims drew attention to some of the material on the site, including stories defending so-called white nationalism and video clips from Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm, among others.
“Mr. Chair, I am quite shocked that government members have asked this group to testify before us,” she said. “I would hope that you would agree with me that these views don’t have any place at a parliamentary committee in one of the most diverse, open and accepting countries on Earth.”
The Conservatives requested the committee move in-camera to discuss the matter, and then agreed to drop the witnesses from the day’s proceedings.
Not satisfied, Conservative MP Chungsen Leung is reported to have declared afterwards in relation to the CIR:
“The views stated in their website are disgusting, and anti-Canadian, and I’m outraged by them. So as a result, I have asked the clerk that they be pulled [from the committee list].”
Needless to say that this should not surprise anyone who is aware of the politics of ‘immigration’ and multiculturalism in the modern West.
Topology of Hegemonic Egalitarianism in the Great White North
Jinny Jogindera Sims was born in India and Chungsen Leung was born in Taiwan, so we would expect them in all cases, even if unencumbered by ideology, to push for excluding an organisation like the CIR.
In turn, Sim’s party, the ironically named ‘New Democratic Party’, originated in 1961 through the merger of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Co-Operative Common Wealth Federation (CCF). These constituent elements were themselves products of prior mergers.
The CLC was formed in 1956 through the merger of the country’s two major labour congresses: the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada (TLC) and the Canadian Congress of Labour (CCL). Unions affiliated with the CCL had been infiltrated by Communists; indeed, a labour central operated by the Communist Party of Canada, the Workers Unity League, had merged with the CCL in 1939.
The CCF originated in 1932 from the merger between the League of Social Reconstruction and various socialist, agrarian, cooperative, and labour groups; among those involved was the Ginger Group, a faction of radical socialist Members of Parliament from the Progressive and Labour parties. The League of Social Reconstruction was formed by 1930s socialist intellectuals, who organised themselves as an adaptation of the British Fabians. The CCF was also part of the Christian Left and the Social Gospel movement.
The NDP advocates, among other things, gender ‘equality’ and equal rights for LGBT citizens; aggressive human rights protection; aboriginal peoples’ treaty, land, and constitutional rights; a foreign policy emphasising diplomacy, peace-keeping, and humanitarian aid; and—this only from one wing—the legalisation of recreational drugs.
The Liberals can be said to have been the architects of modern Canada, having governed the country for nearly 70 years during the 20th century. They are the creators of Canada’s welfare state. Today, however, they are only the third largest party in the House of Commons by some margin, holding only a third of the seats held by the NDP, presently the second largest party.
The Conservatives, currently the largest (and also Chungsen Leung’s) party, controlling more than half the House of Commons, are, of course, ideologically liberal in the classical sense. They are all about economics and individualism. On the surface they claim to be socially conservative, but even in this area they are as flaccid as one could imagine. In the 2011 edition of the Discover Canada booklet for new immigrants they added the following line: ‘Canada’s diversity includes gay and lesbian Canadians, who enjoy the full protection of and equal treatment under the law, including access to civil marriage’. The line begs the question: what are these Conservatives, in fact, conserving? Their belief in equality automatically signals not only their uselessness, but also their utter turpitude.
Egalitarianism is a Closed Universe
Following their exclusion, the CIR, noting that ‘Canada proclaims itself a liberal country’, posed a rhetorical question: ‘Since when, we wonder, is it a liberal value to silence your opposition?’
Liberals have been acutely aware of the contradiction between their theory and their practice, the latter of which has governed necessarily by the need to protect liberalism from existential threats—or, as we perceive it, the need to maintain liberal hegemony for all time. Accordingly, while they believe in tolerance, on the basis that everyone should have equal rights and dignity, they have debated whether there should be limits to tolerance, aware that there are some groups are less equal that others. This represents the debate of wishy-washy liberalism (idealists) versus ‘muscular liberalism’ (pragmatists).
The blindness of both these factions is apparent in the fact that the idealists see the pragmatist position as a dangerous compromise, while the pragmatists see their position as a necessary compromise. In other words, placing limits to toleration is, by their admission, a contradiction of liberal theory.
Yet, there is no contradiction at all. In liberalism the historical subject is the individual; the individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to ‘liberate’ the individual from anything external or transcendent to the individual: faith, tradition, and authority. The latter all imply hierarchy. Stripped of these, an individual becomes like any other, an equal, replaceable, and interchangeable unit. What is more, what applies to one, applies to all equally, everywhere and always. Furthermore, all are equally entitled to a slice of the pie. Equality becomes, this way, an absolute moral good, which is taken for granted and cannot be assailed philosophically. The ideology of human rights rests on this moral-philosophical foundation.
The above applies in classical liberalism. Modern liberalism, practiced by all mainstream parties, incorporates Marxist critiques. Marxism, like liberalism, sees the world entirely in material terms. This derives from liberalism’s rejection of any transcendent dimension in life. In such a world, the only thing that matters are material conditions, which, for the Marxists, are linked inextricably to power relations between one group of individuals and another. The historical subject, therefore, is class. Marxism is about protecting a class perceived as powerless from a class perceived as powerful.
The influx of non-European settlers from all parts of the world into traditional White homelands and triumphant settler colonial projects like the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, have resulted, as we well know, from both liberalism and Marxism, and the interactions between the two. In this situation, settlers from the Third World (mislabelled ‘immigrants’) are treated as a class and Whites as another class. Most of the establishment politicians are Whites, and it is Whites who believe sincerely in these egalitarian ideologies, so settlers, because they arrive as appellants to the established authority, which is assumed to be White, are treated as powerless and in need of protection from the powerful Whites.
A White person who values his Whiteness signals his belief that Whiteness ought to have a privileged position and thereby signals his rejection of the absolute moral goodness of equality. We have seen that equality is fundamental, not only as a value, but also to the concept of human rights. Therefore, a White person who campaigns for White interests automatically puts his humanity into question, not only in terms of his capability for human fellowship, but also in terms of his eligibility for equality of rights and dignity. This is why a White advocate is never accorded the same rights and privileges as other citizens, and why it is perfectly normal and natural for individuals representing an organisation like CIR to be excluded from the democratic process. The exclusion is entirely unproblematic, both in theory and in practice. Egalitarianism is a closed universe where only egalitarians can exist. In this universe non-egalitarians are incomprehensible: surely, no sane, moral person would ever think equality is anything but good, right?
It is indeed a liberal value to silence opposition.