Debunking E-mail Bigotry: Immigration

I usually ignore and delete any of the hate e-mails I receive but I decided to comment on this one because:

1. It was sent to us by someone we know that thought we would appreciate it.

2. It claimed to come from the Royal Canadian Legion.

3. It was inspired by disturbing remarks by a 2010 Olympics ceremonies committee official, and

4. It was such an easy target that it would be fun to tear it apart.

First I would like to make it clear that this e-mail does not originate from the Royal Canadian Legion. I received the following response from the Legion when I enquired about this e-mail:

The Royal Canadian Legion has identified this as a bogus e-mail which has not been sanctioned. The logo in use on it has been out of date since 2001. Notification of this has been posted to all branches via elegion and on the bulletin board at www.legion.ca. While we would like to catch the person who started this e-mail this is proving impossible. Please send this on to the people that sent you the bogus message so that they too will know that this message is bogus.

The e-mail stated:

Bruce Allen not out of hot water yet.

VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - Despite being given a show of support by Vancouver 2010 organizers, embattled music manager and CKNW editorialist, Bruce Allen is not out of hot water just yet as the fallout continues from his recent commentary indicating immigrants to Canada should 'fit in,' or 'go home.'

Richmond Liberal MP, Raymond Chan, is set to file an official complaint with the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Television Commission) about Allen's recent 'reality check' alleging the piece was discriminatory. Chan is also demanding an official apology and a retraction of the comments.

It's time we all get behind Bruce Allen, and scrap this Political Correctness business. His comments were anything but racist, but there are far too many overly-sensitive 'New Canadians' that are trying to change everything we hold dear.

So what did Mr. Allen say:

In his regular Reality Check radio comment on CKNW Sept. 13, Allen stated "special interest groups" expect rules for themselves.

"There is the door. If you don't like the rules, hit it," said Allen. "We don't need you here. You have another place to go. It's called home. See ya."

Added Allen: "This is simple. We have laws in this country. They are spelled out and easy to get a hold of. If you're immigrating here and you don't like the rules in place, you have the right to choose not to live here. If you choose to come to Canada, shut up and fit in. We are a democracy, but it seems more and more that we are being pilloried by special interest groups that want special rules for themselves."

His idea of democracy does not seem to include immigrants. So, according to Mr. Allen, we should all be living by aboriginal tribal laws with no special rules for those nasty European immigrants and they certainly should not have criticized anything or changed any of the rules that were in place when they first came here.

In fact there is only one class of Canadian citizen, whether Canadian born or naturalized citizen. We all have the same rights to express our opinions and the same democratic right to participate in the law-making process.

The e-mail continued:

For example, our National Anthem: Don't know what your opinions are, but I certainly agree. --- I'm sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Hindi - enough is enough. Nowhere or at no other time in our nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration. It was written in English, and should be sung word for word the way it was written. The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close.

Well first of all the national anthem was NOT written in English. It was written in French. So Mr. Allen and his supporters better start singing it in French if they believe it should be sung “ word for word the way it was written”. And it has also been sung in many different languages on many occasions, a testament to the love of Canada exhibited by the various immigrant groups in wanting to sing their new national anthem in their mother tongue.

And the misinformed bigotry continued:

I am not sorry if this offends anyone, this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP ---- please pass this along.... I am not against immigration .. just come through like everyone else... Get a sponsor; get a place to lay your head; get a job; pay your taxes; live by the rules ...AND... LEARN THE LANGUAGE

as all other immigrants have in the past.

Another lie, or perhaps just a “misunderstanding of Canadian history”. I would venture to state that very few immigrants, except perhaps for the early explorers, have learned to speak or write, Cree or Ojibway or any other of Canada’s non-immigrant languages.

And the hate message concluded:

and LONG LIVE CANADA!

PART OF THE PROBLEM? Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone-----YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!!

Will we still be the and still be CANADA if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries who have come to live in CANADA because it is the Country of Choice??????

Think about it! IMMIGRANTS, NOT CANADIAN'S, MUST ADAPT. It is Time for CANADA to Speak up. If you agree - pass This along.

Obviously, I do not agree with this hate. Canada is a country of immigrants that brought with them the cultures and languages of the world to create a multicultural country that is the envy of the world. It is the immigrants that came here and learned from our First Nations and added their cultures to Canada that have made this country what it is - “the Country of Choice”.

It is Mr. Allen, and those that think like him, that are “the problem”.

Multiculturalism and Reasonable Accommodation - It’s as Canadian as a Kilt or a Hijab

When you invite friends over do you ever serve food that their religion forbids them to eat. If you go to a wedding of someone of another faith do suggest they should be married in a “Canadian” church. If neighbours invite you to a cultural celebration do you complain about their foreign customs. Of course not, because that would be impolite and certainly not the Canadian way. That is essentially the spirit of “reasonable accommodation” practiced at the personal level.

So why does something that is so natural on a personal level become so controversial on a societal level.

Recent census results indicate that currently there are just over one million aboriginal people in this country. The rest of us are immigrants, or descendants of immigrants. We come from all over the world and we are what makes Canada the wonderful country that it is.

Certainly, due to history, certain groups have become more dominant and certain customs more ingrained in our way of life than others. For example we have a government based on the British Parliamentary system and Christian religious holidays enshrined in statute law. But we are also strengthened by adding the customs of newer Canadian to our way of life.

Canada is a multicultural country that is only strengthened by the many customs and cultures of the people that immigrated to this country to become Canadians. Multiculturalism means that not only do we allow immigrant groups to maintain their customs but also share them with them.

So what is “reasonable accommodation”. Leonard Stern, writing in The Ottawa Citizen, said it best:

Ode to a sales clerk

The Rule of Law and "Veiled Voting"

Canada is not a police state. The police cannot simply tell people to do something because they are the police. They must have legal authority. And neither can other government officials. It does not matter whether everyone thinks that requiring voters to show their faces is a good thing, whether it be the Prime Minister, all political parties, all Muslim organizations and leaders and veiled Muslim women themselves, or even a Parliamentary committee, if the law does not provide the authority election officials cannot require Muslim women to show their faces to vote.

Perhaps the law should be changed. But if the law is to be changed to require photo identification of voters then it must apply to all voters. So why was it not applied to all voters when the act was amended. Perhaps it was because many voters, particularly the poor and disadvantaged, do not have photo identification and requiring it would effectively disenfranchise many of the poor from voting. Do we want to do that simply because veiled women make some people uncomfortable.

And what of those who vote by mail, who do they show their face and photo identification to. Indeed, mail in ballots are a greater concern because there is no guarantee of a secret ballot, one of the basic principles of democratic elections, when mail in ballots are used.

Perhaps we should stop and think before implementing knee jerk reactions to what is in reality more of a theoretical, rather than real, problem.