Monday’s headlines proclaimed “disappointment” and “concern” over a new CROP poll of Canadians’ attitudes toward immigration.
Despite the extraordinarily painstaking efforts by leftist leaders, the media and Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims (former CAIR-CAN), all serving as thought police, Canadians are not quite that naive. Given the voluminous liberal outrage against the former Conservative party’s “Zero Tolerance Against Barbaric Cultural Practices Act” and the federal, provincial and municipal anti-Islamophobia agenda that is being forced upon Canadians, still Canadians support the screening of immigrants for “anti-Canadian values.” Yes, values screening. It is not racist, xenophobic, “Islamophobic” or any other kind of phobic to want to protect Canadian freedoms from sharia incursions, and, indeed, from barbaric practices from any culture. They have no place in Canada.
The article below states:
Of course we can’t empirically test for violent tendencies, misogyny and indolence. There are many good practical reasons not to pursue these policies.
We can however, implement a zero tolerance policy against barbaric practices that violate the constitution, and put an end once and for all to initiatives that potentially threaten the principles of a free society, such as “Islamophobia” initiatives. All such endeavors should be put to rest. The history of “anti-Islamophobia” drives are nefarious. They are being forced upon the West by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and have caused damaging divisions among Canadians. Muslims are protected by existing laws in the same way as is any other group: hate laws are already in place, and that is enough.
“Most Canadians support ‘values screening’ — which is neither surprising nor concerning”, by Chris Selley, National Post, March 13, 2017:
Monday’s headlines proclaimed “disappointment” and “concern” over a new CROP poll of Canadians’ attitudes toward immigration. “A majority of Canadians express concerns,” Société Radio-Canada declared on its home page. Notably, we learned that 74 per cent of respondents support implementing (as the pollsters put it) “a test of values to identify (potential immigrants) who have ‘anti-Canadian’ values.”
That’s Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch’s signature immigration proposal: personal interviews for all new immigrants; values screening; and passing the extra costs on to the new arrivals. This is by no means the first poll to find widespread support for the ideas. And one wonders how often we need to learn of it before we stop being shocked and disappointed — or even particularly concerned.
In theory, in isolation, the ideas are perfectly defensible. All immigrants got personal interviews until 2002. Immigrants pay all manner of fees throughout the process. And if we could somehow empirically test potential immigrants for violent tendencies, misogyny and indolence — three “anti-Canadian values” Leitch has suggested — then we surely would.
To hear some of Leitch’s opponents, you would think the idea of pushing “Canadian values” on immigrants — if not the very idea of “Canadian values” — was beyond the pale. Of course it is not. The “A Look at Canada” citizenship guide — the Liberal one, which the Conservatives replaced amidst apocalyptic howls — says Canadian values include equal rights, “respect for cultural differences,” “freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,” and “law and order.” Being proud of “our international role as peacekeepers” is a Canadian value, it says.
Why push these supposed values on immigrants in book form, but not in person? Are they important or aren’t they?
Of course we can’t empirically test for violent tendencies, misogyny and indolence. There are many good practical reasons not to pursue these policies. The consensus among bien-pensant campaign watchers is that this is nothing more than a populist “dog whistle” appeal to nativists and xenophobes who believe immigrants are more likely to be violent, misogynist and indolent.
But most Canadians aren’t watching the campaign at all, and couldn’t pick Leitch out of a lineup. If you ask them whether Canada should screen immigrants for objectively undesirable traits, then of course most are going to say yes. It’s absurd to hold that up as evidence of a surge in anti-immigrant sentiment, especially when the poll in question provides plenty of evidence to the contrary: 78 per cent think immigration makes Canada a better place to live or makes little difference; 83 per cent think we have much to learn from other cultures; 79 per cent have no desire to see a Trump-style figure in Canadian politics.
If you were inclined to worry about anti-immigrant sentiment, there’s plenty you could latch on to in this 61-page poll that’s far more disquieting than support for “values screening.” But that’s the genius of a wedge issue like this: it provokes a level of outrage and condemnation that to those not following closely would seem unhinged, which in turn makes the policy and the candidate seem all the more reasonable by comparison.
“Leitch’s proposal to screen every immigrant and visitor is nothing but Donald Trump’s executive order, disguised as Canadian values, and crafted to keep Muslims out of Canada,” leadership candidate Deepak Obhrai said in a statement last week. He suggested it could incite racists to murder, such as in Kansas last month.
I’m disgusted by Leitch’s campaign and even I think that’s crazy. But more to the point, it won’t help. Fighting populism with hyperbole is like fighting fire with kerosene, and it’s strange how few anti-populists seem to realize this. If Leitch’s proposal weren’t surrounded by a bunch of exploding heads and people screaming “Trump! TRUMP!” at her, it would just be one silly, unpractical and unnecessary idea among dozens in play in this campaign.