Speech Row Rocks Multi-Ethnic Canada

[Warka]

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7273870.stm

Speech row rocks multi-ethnic Canada

Henri Astier

24 March 2008

Canada is often thought of as a land of bland consensus and multicultural harmony - the last place where you would expect to see a religious minority up in arms, and journalists accusing the state of gagging freedom of speech.

Yet in recent months, these have become fixtures of the country's public debate.

The Canadian equivalent of Denmark's cartoonists, or the Netherlands' Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is the outspoken conservative columnist Mark Steyn.

In a 2006 article he used demographics to suggest that the West would succumb to Muslim domination.

The piece, entitled "The future belongs to Islam" and published by the Toronto magazine Maclean's, argued that Europe was "too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia".

Mr Steyn summarised the presumed global advantage of militant Islam with a stark equation: "Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way."

To some, he had crossed the line between vigorous polemic and Islamophia.

The notion that Muslims should be feared by virtue of their numbers and purported militancy is "quite inflammatory", says Toronto law student Khurrum Awan.

Short shrift

Mr Awan and fellow students marched on Maclean's a year ago to demand a chance to issue a full-length rebuttal in Canada's only nationwide news magazine.

"What we said is that we want an opportunity to participate in the debate when you are talking about the issues that relate directly to us," Mr Awan told the BBC News website.

Maclean's editor gave the students short shrift. He said he had published 27 letters in response to the Steyn article, and would "rather go bankrupt" than let outsiders dictate the content of his magazine.

Late last year the students, supported by the Canadian Islamic Congress, took their demand to the federal Human Rights Commission and similar bodies in British Columbia and Ontario.

The move both publicised the dispute and highlighted a previously little-known aspect of the commissions' remit - the possibility of suppressing speech.

Defiance

The human rights commissions were set up in the 1960s and early 1970s to investigate claims of discrimination in housing and employment.

But section 13 of the 1977 Human Rights Act authorised them to hear complaints about material "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" by reason of race, age, gender, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

To some groups, this provides a useful remedy. "When people feel insulted they should have recourse," says Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, who argues that the Maclean's article promoted hate against Muslims.

But others are alarmed.

Leading the charge against the commissions is Ezra Levant, an Alberta-based publisher who was targeted by a complaint after reprinting the Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in his (now-defunct) newspaper in early 2006.

His accuser, a Calgary Muslim leader who cited the Koran in his complaint, said the publisher had spread hatred.

In January Mr Levant appeared before an Alberta Human Rights official charged with deciding whether to refer the matter to a special tribunal.

In a videotaped statement later posted on his website, Mr Levant called the commission a "sick joke" and defiantly pleaded guilty.

"I'm not going to try to minimise what I've done and beg for mercy," he told the BBC News website. "I have the right to violate all those Koranic precepts because we follow Queen Elizabeth's law, not Muhammad's law."

Rights, old and new

But by focusing on the legal process, Mr Levant and others added an important new dimension to the dispute. It no longer centred on the familiar "Islam v West" question.

Canada's Human Rights Act is not an Islamic creation; Jewish and other groups have supported complaints under its speech provisions.

And the complainants against both Maclean's and Mr Levant, in BBC interviews, professed their attachment to free speech and abhorrence of radical Islam.

The core of the dispute is best understood not as a clash of civilisations, but as a conflict within the West itself.

It pits old liberal values that sanctify individuals against a new emphasis on the rights of groups.

Mr Levant regards commission officers as "new-fangled, political crusaders" bent on overturning centuries-old Common Law.

Canada's Human Rights Tribunals, he points out, are quasi-judicial bodies, not regular courts bound by strict standards of procedure to protect defendants.

Every single "section 13" complaint referred to the federal Human Rights Tribunal has been upheld.

And those targeted often incur heavy costs even if a complaint is dropped - as was the case for Mr Levant, who says his legal bills amount to C$100,000 (£49,000).

'Flawed approach'

The commission officials who vet complaints deny acting like rogue inquisitors, and insist they strictly follow the law.

"We have a legal obligation to consider every complaint we receive if it fits one of the grounds for which discrimination cases can be heard," says Carmen Gregoire, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

But according to critics, the fact that commissions are acting within the law offers little comfort.

Alan Borovoy, a veteran lawyer who campaigned to set up the commissions, says their willingness to hear complaints about speech rests on flawed legislation.

He regards the provisions on "hatred or contempt" as departures from the original purpose of the Human Rights Act, and wants them scrapped.

"The human rights statutes were designed to deal with discriminatory acts, not discriminatory words," he says.

Mr Borovoy believes that minorities' push for equality, which he supports, has led to a neglect of traditional freedoms.

"Other interests have for the time being trumped the free-speech values and I'm hoping that with some of these cases we might be able to turn the tide," he says.

[Felix the Cat]

How many mozzies in Canada?

It's obvious that once a particular group (Muslims are not alone here) reaches a particular size, issues of freedom of speech have to take a back seat to issues of civil order

[Józef Piłsudski]

These so called hate-crime laws and human rights tribunal should piss off every true Canadian
What a waste of tax-dollars. Instead of paying for bitchy infidel immigrants, why don't we put more money towards our boys who are fighting this scourge abroad.

As for the Islamic threat, we should be quite worried. Hopefully Canada will wake up.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Canada's multiculturalism, although not perfect, works quite well. Steyn was naturally stirring the pot here, and certainly isn't oblivious to the fact that his fellow neo-cons and their relatives are big on mass immigration.

[Dan Dare]

The key issue with this particular legislation is the provision in Section 13(1) which proscribes "... any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

This provides any member of a preferred group with an open invitation to bring a complaint for more or less any slight, whether real or perceived.

[Errigal]

Canada's multiculturalism, although not perfect, works quite well. Steyn was naturally stirring the pot here, and certainly isn't oblivious to the fact that his fellow neo-cons and their relatives are big on mass immigration.

Thanks Croatian Snow. You are the one playing Adriatic Wigger to anyone who'll listen; jabbering on about "cakes" and how much the White Man's day is done in Toronto. I'm sure multiculturalism is working for you Streetracer. Seeing you don't give a damn about Canada as a community, I don't give your endorsement of multiculturalism much weight.

Keep it real in the GTA Woglife:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpVRnfsn0Yk&feature=related

Croatia's answer to Ali G gives Canada's multicultural policy thumbs up!

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Thanks Croatian Snow. You are the one playing Adriatic Wigger to anyone who'll listen; jabbering on about "cakes" and how much the White Man's day is done in Toronto. I'm sure multiculturalism is working for you Streetracer. Seeing you don't give a damn about Canada as a community, I don't give your endorsement of multiculturalism much weight.

Keep it real in the GTA Woglife:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpVRnfsn0Yk&feature=related

Canada belongs just as much to the Somali immigrant as it does to you. To me, cakes are no different than Jamaicans, Somalis, or Mongols.

[Errigal]

Canada belongs just as much to the Somali immigrant as it does to you. To me, cakes are no different than Jamaicans, Somalis, or Mongols.

I guess that's why I have no respect for you. You are essentially a traitor to your adopted country and your own civilization. You are contemptuous. Go ahead and be the best Wigger you can be.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I guess that's why I have no respect for you. You are essentially a traitor to your adopted country and your own civilization.

Canada isn't my country nor was this "culture" ever mine. My culture is that of Roman Catholicism and being Croatian.

You are contemptuous. Go ahead and be the best Wigger you can be.

Ah yes, accepting reality is being a "wigger".

I guess that's what passes for intellectualism around here.

Errigal, understand this: you WASPs are foreign to me and to most continental Europeans.

You are as foreign as the Somali, the Sikh, the Cantonese.

We don't share a civilization nor have we shared a civilization since Henry the VIII couldn't keep it in his pants.

Loathing the WASP is a sign of decency in an individual. Mind you, I'm speaking in generalities, but I'm sure it'll be miscontsrued here anyway.

[Józef Piłsudski]

Canada's multiculturalism, although not perfect, works quite well. Steyn was naturally stirring the pot here, and certainly isn't oblivious to the fact that his fellow neo-cons and their relatives are big on mass immigration.
He is stirring the pot for a good reason. It is important to raise awareness that some members of the Islamic community do not believe in Canada. Though extremists might be a minority, Steyn's stirring of the pot is increasing awareness, provoking extremists and inspiring moderates to speak up. He's identifying a potential problem. If you don't think we have a reason to worry, just look at the Muslim communities in Western Europe. I don't want to see the day that downtown Toronto has a bunch of rowdy immigrants burning cars and shouting death to infidels.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

He is stirring the pot for a good reason. It is important to raise awareness that some members of the Islamic community do not believe in Canada.

What does it mean to "believe in Canada"?

Though extremists might be a minority, Steyn's stirring of the pot is increasing awareness, provoking extremists and inspiring moderates to speak up. He's identifying a potential problem.

Steyn is demonizing Muslims for obvious reasons relating to his agenda which is pimping for Israel.

If you don't think we have a reason to worry, just look at the Muslim communities in Western Europe. I don't want to see the day that downtown Toronto has a bunch of rowdy immigrants burning cars and shouting death to infidels.

There are some nuts here in Toronto, but they pale in comparison to the violence from the Jamaican community in particular. However, I don't see Steyn addressing that issue.

[Errigal]

Canada isn't my country nor was this "culture" ever mine. My culture is that of Roman Catholicism and being Croatian.




Ah yes, accepting reality is being a "wigger".

I guess that's what passes for intellectualism around here.

I never claimed to be shooting for " intellectualism" with my comments. My only goal was to legitimately insult you for being an ungrateful immigrant and a man who does not take his oaths seriously. Burn your Canadian passport at the Croatian airport of your choice or shut the fuck up.


Errigal, understand this: you WASPs are foreign to me and to most continental Europeans.
...

Let's take "WASP" apart:

"W" for White: I'm White if I'm in a riverboat going up the Congo River or buying cigarettes at a 7/11 in Detroit at 3AM, otherwise I'm just me.

"AS" for Anglo-Saxon: You got the wrong number on that. I'm a Celt with Nordid influences via the Western Isles of Scotland.

"P" for Protestant: Yes, that's me. I will not bend my knee to the Bishop of Rome. Deal with it.

Conversation over.

[1-800]

Canada isn't my country nor was this "culture" ever mine. My culture is that of Roman Catholicism and being Croatian.


Should be easy enough to prove...let's see your passport, eh?

:rofl:

Errigal, understand this: you WASPs are foreign to me and to most continental Europeans.


Regardless, they were the founders of Canada (setting the issue of Quebec aside for a minute) and continue to make up the bulk of the Canadian population.

Loathing the WASP is a sign of decency in an individual. Mind you, I'm speaking in generalities, but I'm sure it'll be miscontsrued here anyway.

That's rather silly.

Truth be told, those who truly loath WASPs are almost uniformly plastic paddies in America, Canada, or Aus., whose only real connection to their 'Celtic heritage' is drunkenly slurring Danny Boy at the local Irish pub.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I never claimed to be shooting for " intellectualism" with my comments. My only goal was to legitimately insult you for being an ungrateful immigrant and a man who does not take his oaths seriously.

I'm very grateful....nowhere have I shown that I am ungrateful.

But I'm not Canadian. I don't even know what a Canadian is....nor do most residents of Canada.

The problem here is that you're confusing your vision of what you'd like Canada to be with what Canada actually is.


Let's take "WASP" apart:

"W" for White: I'm White if I'm in a riverboat going up the Congo River or buying cigarettes at a 7/11 in Detroit at 3AM, otherwise I'm just me.

"AS" for Anglo-Saxon: You got the wrong number on that. I'm a Celt with Nordid influences via the Western Isles of Scotland.

"P" for Protestant: Yes, that's me. I will not bend my knee to the Bishop of Rome. Deal with it.

Conversation over.

Then you understand that you and I don't have a shared culture. I'm glad you understand your mistake.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Should be easy enough to prove...let's see your passport, eh?

:rofl:

Holding a passport doesn't denote nationality. It denotes citizenship.



Regardless, they were the founders of Canada (setting the issue of Quebec aside for a minute) and continue to make up the bulk of the Canadian population.

You can't set Quebec aside.


Truth be told, those who truly loath WASPs are almost uniformly plastic paddies in America, Canada, or Aus., whose only real connection to their 'Celtic heritage' is drunkenly slurring Danny Boy at the local Irish pub.

Up here, the division was always between the WASPs and the Blacks they hung out with, against the Catholics of mainland Europe. The Asians and Africans came later.

[1-800]

Holding a passport doesn't denote nationality. It denotes citizenship.


I'm a bit rusty on international law, but I believe ethnicity would be the proper term, not nationality, since the idea of nationality is still tied to states' jurisdiction over your person, not sentimental attachment to your homeland.


You can't set Quebec aside.


Ok, even with Quebec taken into consideration, Canada's heritage is almost wholly derived from its original WASP settlers, who continue to constitute a majority of the Canadian population.



Up here, the division was always between the WASPs and the Blacks they hung out with, against the Catholics of mainland Europe. The Asians and Africans came later.


The situation is similar to cities in America where there were once large populations of European Catholics, WASPs, and non-European ethnicities (e.g. Boston) -- even through the 1950s, the Irish immigrants of Boston were looked on with far more suspicion by the WASP city fathers than the native blacks. Rivalries between native groups (by 'later' i assume you mean African and Carribean immigrants who came after the 76 Immigration Act, points system, and family re-unification) and new immigrants are to be expected.

I am referring to your utter hatred of all things Anglo, which is quite frankly bizarre, not to the natural nativist sentiment of old stock Canadians.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Ok, even with Quebec taken into consideration, Canada's heritage is almost wholly derived from its original WASP settlers, who continue to constitute a majority of the Canadian population.

Not at all a factual statement.


I am referring to your utter hatred of all things Anglo, which is quite frankly bizarre, not to the natural nativist sentiment of old stock Canadians.

First of all, I'm not a Canadian. Second of all, I don't even know what a Canadian is....nor do most residents of Canada. Thirdly, less than half of Canada's citizens list themselves as "Canadian" in census forms. From what I recall, the number last time around is 38%.

Fourth, feel free to ask the Quebecois their views on Anglos. Loathing the Anglos is as old as the Hudson's Bay Company.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I'm a bit rusty on international law, but I believe ethnicity would be the proper term, not nationality, since the idea of nationality is still tied to states' jurisdiction over your person, not sentimental attachment to your homeland.

There is no such thing as a "Canadian nation".

Giving a French passport to a Tunisian doesn't make him French, does it?

[1-800]

Not at all a factual statement.


Then perhaps you'd like to show me the error my ways.


First of all, I'm not a Canadian. Second of all, I don't even know what a Canadian is....nor do most residents of Canada. Thirdly, less than half of Canada's citizens list themselves as "Canadian" in census forms. From what I recall, the number last time around is 38%.


i amended my statement above -- it would be more precise to claim Croatian as your ethnicity, not nationality, since I doubt Croatia considers you one of its citizens. In international law, it is commonly accepted that it is the prerogative of the state to determine who may claim 'x' nationality.


Fourth, feel free to ask the Quebecois their views on Anglos. Loathing the Anglos is as old as the Hudson's Bay Company.

:rofl: It's quite obvious that the Quebecois dislike the Anglos, and in their hyperbolic condemnations of Anglo perfidy, it is possible to see some truth. Your woggish vituperativeness does come across as ridiculous posturing and compensation, however -- really, it's a stance all too common among Irish-Americans who curse great-great grandpa for ever leaving Eire's warm embrace.

[1-800]

There is no such thing as a "Canadian nation".

"Yes" there is, unless you wish to throw out all the conventions of international law and play by the rules of super Internet lawyer neo-niccolo, esq.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

"Yes" there is, unless you wish to throw out all the conventions of international law and play by the rules of super Internet lawyer neo-niccolo, esq.

If you've ever spent any time in Canada, you'd know that there is a continual raging debate on what it means to be a Canadian and if it actually exists.

Can you define "Canadian"? Residents of Canada sure can't.

[1-800]

If you've ever spent any time in Canada, you'd know that there is a continual raging debate on what it means to be a Canadian and if it actually exists.

Can you define "Canadian"? Residents of Canada sure can't.

You are confusing nationality and ethnicity -- in the English-speaking world, and in international law, nationality is the extension of a state's privileges to its citizens.

Is there a Canadian ethnicity? That is debatable.

Is there a Canadian nation, with nationals of Canadian nationality? Yes -- and you are part of the Canadian nation, even if you are ethnically Croatian.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

You are confusing nationality and ethnicity -- in the English-speaking world, and in international law, nationality is the extension of a state's privileges to its citizens.

Is there a Canadian ethnicity? That is debatable.

Is there a Canadian nation, with nationals of Canadian nationality? Yes -- and you are part of the Canadian nation, even if you are ethnically Croatian.

Sorry, I don't see a Canadian nation. I don't belong to this mythical Canadian nation.

Can you define the Canadian nation? Go for it.

[O'Zebedee]

Nic is talking about identity, and he makes some good points.

However, as far as I know, most of his time has been spent in just one part of the country - Canada is far more complicated than such a casual pegging allows.

[1-800]

Sorry, I don't see a Canadian nation. I don't belong to this mythical Canadian nation.

Can you define the Canadian nation? Go for it.

No, because you're trying to play little semantic games, and you are in the wrong.

Nationality and citizenship are one and the same in English-speaking nations, in international law, in common-law countries. Ask any practicing lawyer in Canada.

Do you want me to define Canadian ethnicity? That would be a fair question, and that is where the real debate lies.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Nic is talking about identity, and he makes some good points.

However, as far as I know, most of his time has been spent in just one part of the country - Canada is far more complicated than such a casual pegging allows.

And you bring up a great point: Canada is just too large a country and too sparsely populated a country to have a cohesive identity. John Ralston Saul tried to suggest that Canada naturally flows east-west communications wise, but that flies in the face of the fact that Vancouver speaks to Seattle and San Fran while Toronto speaks to Chicago and NYC.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

No, because you're trying to play little semantic games, and you are in the wrong.

Nationality and citizenship are one and the same in English-speaking nations, in international law, in common-law countries. Ask any practicing lawyer in Canada.

Do you want me to define Canadian ethnicity? That would be a fair question, and that is where the real debate lies.

That's nice, but I'm not a Canadian. The Quebecois have a much greater case for nationhood than that of the "Canadian". The Australians also are a much more distinct group than Canadians.

[O'Zebedee]

The idea of Canadian ethnicity is interesting, but doesn't really play well over the entire country.

I know of several posters (on other boards) who have asserted a constant British WASP presence, but Alberta, for instance, has a huge and often unremarked Ukrainian heritage - as well as smaller French communities that have marked the province. There are several small towns in BC where German is almost the first language. These people do not see themselves as being kin to the British, trust me.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

The idea of Canadian ethnicity is interesting, but doesn't really play well over the entire country.

I know of several posters (on other boards) who have asserted a constant British WASP presence, but Alberta, for instance, has a huge and often unremarked Ukrainian heritage - as well as smaller French communities that have marked the province. There are several small towns in BC where German is almost the first language. These people do not see themselves as being kin to the British, trust me.

Brits
French - now Quebecois
Natives
Irish
Ukes

Canada did a dramatic switch from being a Brit dominion to going tossed salad. It's as if those of non-Brit heritage in the old days weren't at all recognized, and then suddenly POOF!!!! they became very recognized.

Canada never had the high pressure assimilationism of our neighbours to the south. That assimilationism allowed the USA to absorb huge numbers of immigrants in the Ellis Island days and Americanize them quickly. Canada, absorbing relatively large numbers these days doesn't take the same tack and therefore the identity of the Canadian becomes even harder to define.

[Józef Piłsudski]

What does it mean to "believe in Canada"?
The dreaded Canadian identity debate. What I meant by that statement was that members of the Muslim community have expressed a desire to be held accountable to their own laws, and for Canada to recognize them. Muslims are not special citizens, they have come here like the rest of us, they should follow the rules like we have and they should be treated like the rest of us.



Steyn is demonizing Muslims for obvious reasons relating to his agenda which is pimping for Israel.

Oh please, its a defence of Western Civilization. As a fellow Slav and Catholic, who was born in Canada, I see Steyn's work in this area as defending Canada from a community that refuses to play by the rules. Just look to the problems Western Europe is going through. Steyn himself uses those examples endlessly, he seems to be expressing a worry that in a few decades, my car could be set aflame by some unemployed Islamic punk.


There are some nuts here in Toronto, but they pale in comparison to the violence from the Jamaican community in particular. However, I don't see Steyn addressing that issue.
As prone to crime as the Jamaican communites are, they are not asking for their own legal system, and they are not wasting tax-dollars on attacking freedom of speech nor am I worried that they will have fantasies of making Canada some sort of islamic shithole.

[Hakluyt]

Actually, in my experience almost everyone knows exactly what an ethnic 'Canadian' is. It's either an Anglo-Canadian (i.e. British isles or assimilated NW European) or a French Canadian. These are parallel identities, not contradictory ones: when the word 'Canadian' is spoken in English, it means Anglo-Canadian, and the French Canadian must submit to being hyphenated; when it is spoken in french, 'Canadien' means French Canadian, and Anglo-Canadians must submit to being 'anglais'. These are the two legitimate 'Canadian' identities, because they refer first and foremost to an identity that took shape in this country as opposed to somewhere else.

The groups of friends I spend most of my time with are heavily non-Anglo, first-gen European, and non-white. I am reminded almost daily of my essential Canadianness. If most Anglo-Canadians had the same kind of friends I do there would be no 'Canadian identity debate', of this I am certain.

[Józef Piłsudski]

I have to disagree with you Haklyut.

First of all, the French-Canadian and Anglo-Canadian are not the only identities that have developed in this country. For instance, the Ukrainians have been here for over a century, their identity has taken shape in this country. How long must an ethnicity develop in this country before it becomes Canadian?

What also of the Metis? Though they have much British and French influence, surely it is seen as a separate identity, and a very Canadian one at that.

When I think of a Canadian, what comes to mind is one's adherence to the general Canadian culture. In my mind an ethnic Canadian is simply a hybrid of Canadian culture and the culture of origin. It of course suggests citizenship but even beyond that it suggests being born here.

I am a Polish/Ukrainian-Canadian. I cannot be thought of as simply Polish-Ukrainian for the simple fact that I cannot speak either language fluently. I also cannot be thought of simply Canadian, though I will grant you that I think of British/Irish descendents when I think of plain Canadian.

Are Hybrid Canadians less Canadian then their counterparts?

At the end of the day though, I'm more concerned with one's allegience to the nation. I have no problem of thinking a Canadian born Sikh as Canadian, especially if they are fighting in Afghanistan.

I think there are simply too many considerations to flat out state what a Canadian is.

[Hakluyt]

Aboriginals and mixtures thereof are pre-Canadian or part-Canadian, of course. The Metis in particular are usually overwhelmingly Anglo or French Canadian ethnically so they can be classed as either of those.

The existence of an ethnic Canadianness doesnt discount the existence of civic Canadianness, the importance of which I don't question, but which is a different plane of identity.

[Józef Piłsudski]

Aboriginals and mixtures thereof are pre-Canadian or part-Canadian, of course. The Metis in particular are usually overwhelmingly Anglo or French Canadian ethnically so they can be classed as either of those.

The existence of an ethnic Canadianness doesnt discount the existence of civic Canadianness, the importance of which I don't question, but which is a different plane of identity.
I still don't think that the definition of an ethnic Canadian is as neat as you have presented it. For instance, I have a few friends who are of German origin whose family has been here for many generations. They do not practice any German customs, and are identical to any other British/Irish Canadian, the only exception being their last name.

Given a few generations, I'm sure my descendants will have nothing left of their Slavic origin and many ethnic Canadians and hybrid Canadians will intermarry. They would certainly seem to be "ethnically Canadian" to me.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I still don't think that the definition of an ethnic Canadian is as neat as you have presented it. For instance, I have a few friends who are of German origin whose family has been here for many generations. They do not practice any German customs, and are identical to any other British/Irish Canadian, the only exception being their last name.

Given a few generations, I'm sure my descendants will have nothing left of their Slavic origin and many ethnic Canadians and hybrid Canadians will intermarry. They would certainly seem to be "ethnically Canadian" to me.

How could the Quebecois who reject Canada be "Canadiens"? That doesn't make sense. They consider their nationality to be Quebecois.

Canada and its composition is constantly in movement and constantly changing. Unless Canada has a period akin to the Americans' 1924-1965, it's gonna be even more difficult to define what a Canadian is in the future.

Combine that with the lack of strong central institutions that tie people together, and the notion of a Canadian nationality almost becomes impossible.

[Hakluyt]

I still don't think that the definition of an ethnic Canadian is as neat as you have presented it. For instance, I have a few friends who are of German origin whose family has been here for many generations. They do not practice any German customs, and are identical to any other British/Irish Canadian, the only exception being their last name.

Given a few generations, I'm sure my descendants will have nothing left of their Slavic origin and many ethnic Canadians and hybrid Canadians will intermarry. They would certainly seem to be "ethnically Canadian" to me.
Germans are certainly a highly assimilable group. Notice I said 'British isles origin or assimilated NW European'.

Time will tell whether Slavs can assimilate en masse; I think Ukrainians in the West largely have, but with the waves of current Euro immigration I don't see it happening. They will differentiate themselves for the forseeable future.

[Hakluyt]

How could the Quebecois who reject Canada be "Canadiens"? That doesn't make sense. They consider their nationality to be Quebecois.
Actually the vast majority of nationalists consider themselves either Canadiens or 'Francais'. Quebecois is a civic identity and doesn't really have much more currency than 'Ontarian'; only about 80,000 use it on the census. English Canadians use it to describe them more than they do themselves.

Canada and its composition is constantly in movement and constantly changing. Unless Canada has a period akin to the Americans' 1924-1965, it's gonna be even more difficult to define what a Canadian is in the future.

Combine that with the lack of strong central institutions that tie people together, and the notion of a Canadian nationality almost becomes impossible.
I agree there's no Canadian nationality, and that's the way it should be. Meltingpotism is a crime against culture and against nature, and our founders believed that as much as we do today (e.g. 17th century Anglo-Tories like Sir Guy Carleton who preferred the French Canadians to the Yankees). What we have are various groups living within Canada. However, two of this country's ethnic groups happen to have taken shape here, founded its political culture, have no other homeland, and deserve for public policy to be made primarily in their interests. That's all that needs to be conceded to make multiculturalism work for me.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Actually the vast majority of nationalists consider themselves either Canadiens or 'Francais'. Quebecois is a civic identity and doesn't really have much more currency than 'Ontarian'; only about 80,000 use it on the census. English Canadians use it to describe them more than they do themselves.

I don't think that the census application can really fit in here because it's illogical. If you're Quebecois and you support Quebec independence, how can you be a "Canadien" outside of Canada?

[Hakluyt]

Because 'Canadien' predates 'Canada' as a state. 'Canadien' isn't just a civic identity, it's an ethnic identity. Quebecois is not an ethnic identity (as the census demonstrates), so an independent Quebec would continue to be populated by Canadiens.

[raven]

You can praise multiculturalism all you want. Until the Islamists and other minorities use "multiculturalism" to demand special privileges and hold Anglo-Celts and other Canadians of European descent hostage. It has to be a concern that European-Canadians are being made to be second-class citizens having to submit to these crazy speech laws and being discriminated against by the law (which is being made to favor non-European minorities). I don't know about you but I don't like being told that white people (read : people of European descent) are evil and that our western civilization is evil while they mooch off of the fruits of our civilization and throw western peoples in jail for expressing unpopular beliefs with regards to race and civilization.

If it really is true that non-European immigrants just want to work hard, send their kids to school and live in peace like our european immigrant ancestors wanted, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But it doesn't fucking end there and anyone who isn't naive knows this. My great grandparents, grandparents, parents and their relatives faced actual racism and discrimination for beings "wogs" and they didn't complain or ask for any special treatment. Yet you have non-Europeans these days facing not even 1/10th of the racism and discrimination and they bitch and moan and demand special privileges, demand that people of European descent be made to feel guilty of their heritage and lick their ass. And most importantly, they want to squelch free speech. Fuck that shit. From one wog to another, I can emphasize with Dagos, Croats, Serbs, etc. but you can't expect me to look kindly to Muslims, Blacks and others who want to stir shit, fuck with our rights and have the red carpet rolled out for them. I don't want to hear that I have "white privilege". Not when European immigrants from Ireland, Southern and Eastern Europe have the history that they do in the Anglosphere.

[Felix the Cat]

Is Canada self-sufficient in energy? Could it withstand an oil embargo? For how long?

People need to start thinking about these things

[Impérialiste]

I don't think that the census application can really fit in here because it's illogical. If you're Quebecois and you support Quebec independence, how can you be a "Canadien" outside of Canada?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau would pretty much agree with you. Rousseau's argument is a tad different though, which I may as well cover in this post.

Rousseau's conception of the nation-state is quite postmodernist in a sense, and it's the idea that states were created in order to achieve self-preservation; Rousseau would have never supported multiculturalism. Indeed, Rousseau would find that to violate equality, for property rights (to him, which links to ethnic conflicts, really, because of economic inequality) lead to inequality. And to preserve property rights, laws are required to preserve such things - laws created in a socially constructed sense (which is where Rousseau disagrees with Hobbes and Locke, for Locke assume a natural constancy) to protect the rich at the expense of the poor.

Anyhow, Rousseau wouldn't agree with a Canada as an ethnic entity. He not only strongly disagreed with the nation-state in his time, seeing France as a social construction set for the king (which is pretty much true), rather than a state that goes with self-preservation (which is an issue of the real nation-state, i.e. the differences between Athens, Sparta, and other states within Greece, even though Greek would encompass all, which Rousseau would see as a social construct).

The modern world would be depressing to Rousseau, and he'd blame such things on property rights. But if he were to have a favorite state, besides Geneva, he'd choose Quebec and Les Quebecois over Canada as a real nation-state. But this all goes back to whether you agree with Rousseau or not.

And on an aside, Alain de Benoist's "utopia," if you will, basically uses Rousseau's theory of the nation-state set in The Social Contract: We need a European Superstate, but all ethnic groups are separated and no real nation triumphs instead of what we have now (basically a synthesis between Rousseau and the hypernationalism that came from France and Germany in different times [French Revolution and then the Franco-Prussia War]). Ethnic nationalists should really study Rousseau.

But yeah, Rousseau would pretty much agree with your assessment.

[Crusader]

Canada belongs just as much to the Somali immigrant as it does to you. To me, cakes are no different than Jamaicans, Somalis, or Mongols.

Bullshit!! I'm a decedent of some of the original settlers pioneers and voyageurs to North America. Many of whom risked life and limb to found what was then an open, unknown wilderness. Once the nations of Canada and the United States have been created, it was then the prerogative of the founding settler European people to allow more hard working White European kinsmen to immigrate here.

On the other hand, a Somali immigrant comes here and takes advantage safety and comfort that the White people have already created. The Somali immigrant is here only because of a Zionist immigration policy! A policy in both Canada and the US designed to favor non-Whites from the third world with the goal of making White people a minority in North America sooner rather than later.