Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to have
finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article written in
response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was interrupted to
announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing on Israel. The
crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the article.)

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism

He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
racists. Look where that's gotten us!

He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed
ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be a
good start. A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of any
naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then
deporting them too. There would obviously need to be very serious
discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
to start to move on this.

--
Rhino

On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 22:02:01 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to have
>finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article written in
>response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was interrupted to
>announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing on Israel. The
>crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the article.)
>
>https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
>
>He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
>for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
>racists. Look where that's gotten us!
>
>He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed
>ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
>He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
>involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be a
>good start. A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
>offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of any
>naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then
>deporting them too. There would obviously need to be very serious
>discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
>prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
>to start to move on this.

I agree with him. Not sure you could strip Canadian citizenship once
granted unless you could prove in court that fraud was committed on
the citizenship application (this is what got Ernst Zundel stripped of
his citizenship since he had been a member of the Waffen-SS which like
the KGB are/were organizations proscribed from entering Canada at all
much less applying for Canadian citizenship and since he had lied on
that point in his citizenship application it was counted as forgery
thus legally voiding his application) but certainly landed immigrants
and folks on visitors or student visas could be deported - and SHOULD
be if they're doing that sort of thing.

Canada has enough looney toon "foreign cause of the day" socialists
without having to host foreign looney toons.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to have
>finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article written in
>response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was interrupted to
>announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing on Israel. The
>crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the article.)

>https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism

>He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
>for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
>racists. Look where that's gotten us!

The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program. Many
immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly
motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution and
war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had
essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be forced
to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't want to go to.

But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to the
"melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th century
and much of the 20th century accused Catholics -- especially Irish
ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and therefore disloyal. This
was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large numbers
since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal government
patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service laws. The new
administration fired everybody hired by the previous administration to
put in his own clan. That and certain very public celebrations in
America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are about drinking (as if
the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring the clan. It's not exactly
celebrating a tradition in the old world as they don't have four major
parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as a federal government and state
government public holiday (but not in the private sector) is to honor
Italian ethnics. I don't believe Columbus leaving for the New World is
celebrated in Spain (there's no reason to celebrate it in Italy which
didn't have colonies in the Americas).

Not everything melted. But what everybody found in America, at least
after the first generation which may have organized gangs for, er,
community protection, was that everybody got along because they never
gave a shit about European national rivalries to begin with (except for
soccer). Norwegians and Swedes get along. Pakistani and Indians get
along. We managed to find new rivalries but artificial attempts to
preserve old world culture couldn't possibly counteract that.

>He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed
>ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
>He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
>involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be a
>good start.

Of course I agree.

>A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
>offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of any
>naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then
>deporting them too.

Conviction of a felony, lying on immigration papers about having
committed felonies in the old country (for crimes that would have been
crimes in the new world, not just laws oppressing citizens), the usual
reasons.

>There would obviously need to be very serious
>discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
>prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
>to start to move on this.

Aren't these laws already on the books?

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
> >have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
> >written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was
> >interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing
> >on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the
> >article.)
>
> >https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
> >
>
> >He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
> >for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
> >racists. Look where that's gotten us!
>
> The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.

That's an interesting thing to say. I've never heard it stated that
way but it's important to say it to make clear that the melting pot
idea was an expectation of many Americans but not something mandated by
the federal or state governments.

> Many
> immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly
> motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
> their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution and
> war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had
> essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be
> forced to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't want
> to go to.
>
> But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to the
> "melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th century
> and much of the 20th century accused Catholics -- especially Irish
> ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and therefore disloyal.

I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all
Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
true?

> This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large
> numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
> government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
> laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous
> administration to put in his own clan.

Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.

> That and certain very public
> celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
> about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
> the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
> as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
> a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
> the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
> Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's no
> reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the
> Americas).
>
Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s; prior
to that, there were a variety of Italian states. (Much the same was the
case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of the
Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)

The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to
Christianity to fit it. Whatever concerns they must have had about
persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
still felt they could practice their religion here.
> Not everything melted. But what everybody found in America, at least
> after the first generation which may have organized gangs for, er,
> community protection, was that everybody got along because they never
> gave a shit about European national rivalries to begin with (except
> for soccer). Norwegians and Swedes get along. Pakistani and Indians
> get along. We managed to find new rivalries but artificial attempts to
> preserve old world culture couldn't possibly counteract that.
>
I think this was largely true in Canada too, but with some exceptions.
First, tensions between francophones and everyone else seem to have
been a feature of life in this country since the British took over by
the end of the Seven Years War. The francophones were never really
assimilated but that's a delicate topic in our history so I honestly
don't know to what extent the British even tried. I suspect they didn't
think they could force assimilation too readily when the majority of
the population were francophones.

Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in BC
blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely people
from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the Golden
Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an independent
Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions between Sikhs and
Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a source of tension
between Canada and India given that Modi deplores the idea of an
independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to defend the right of
Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.

> >He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed
> >ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
> >He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
> >involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be
> >a good start.
>
> Of course I agree.
>
> >A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
> >offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of
> >any naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then
> >deporting them too.
>
> Conviction of a felony, lying on immigration papers about having
> committed felonies in the old country (for crimes that would have been
> crimes in the new world, not just laws oppressing citizens), the usual
> reasons.
>
Yes.

> >There would obviously need to be very serious
> >discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
> >prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
> >to start to move on this.
>
> Aren't these laws already on the books?

These laws may exist but the politicians and/or courts are extremely
reluctant to invoke them. As Horny Goat pointed out, they were used to
deport Ernst Zundel, a neo-Nazi, back to Germany when he was a pain in
the ass here, and they also TRIED to use it to deport some alleged
Holocaust perpetrators back to Germany but largely failed. (For
instance, Helmut Oberlander, a successful property developer in my
hometown was supposed to be stripped of his citizenship and sent back
to trial in Germany but he fought it in the courts; the legal
precedings were still ongoing despite years of efforts when he finally
died here in Canada at 104.

I think our courts are reluctant to prosecute things that risk
citizenship becase their political masters are inevitably going to be
extremely cautious about the consequences. I don't think they're going
to want voters to worry that the citizenships they earned are going to
be forfeit for any but the most serious offenses. We have a very large
percentage of naturalized citizens and residents that are going through
the naturalization process. A party that seems ready to toss people out
of the country after they've undergone the dislocation involved in
immigrating, probably learning a new language, probably struggling to
requalify in their old profession or often taken on a whole new one
would risk grave issues at election time!

Any legislation that proposed stripping people of citizenship would
have to be the result of a strong concensus of practically everyone if
it isn't going to become an anchor around the neck of just the dominant
party in Parliament.

--
Rhino

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:13:00 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC)
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
>> >have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
>> >written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was
>> >interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing
>> >on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the
>> >article.)
>>
>> >https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
>> >
>>
>> >He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
>> >for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
>> >racists. Look where that's gotten us!
>>
>> The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.

I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has always
been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many more
states than Canadian provinces. The Canadian government on paper is
more centralized than in the US but in practice I'd argue the opposite
- largely because there are more states for power to be divided
between. The recent fights between Alberta (our major oil-producing
province) and Ottawa over an energy tax allegedly to "help us meet our
2030 energy targets" is a recent but prime example.

>> Many
>> immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly
>> motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
>> their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution and
>> war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had
>> essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be
>> forced to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't want
>> to go to.

In my own case that's true but not so since of the 4 nationalities
that make up my forebears, things are most problematic in Ireland
since on the one hand most of mine are 'on the Protestant side of the
altar rail', both the US + Canada got lots of both Catholic and
Protestant Irish. Some Catholic Irish (mostly in North America) take
the view that my sort aren't true Irish which is somewhat like the
Palestinian claim that Ashkenazi Jews are non-Semitic - though most
would argue that Irish are Irish from whatever side of the border.

No question in the 19th century Protestant Irish tended to get along
with the powers that be in both countries better than the Catholic
Irish though that was true of Protestants and Catholics generally.
>> But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to the
>> "melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th century
>> and much of the 20th century accused Catholics -- especially Irish
>> ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and therefore disloyal.
>
>I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all
>Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
>true?

I've always understood that the particularly religious Irish Catholics
were the "Papists" though amongst Belfast Protestants it was used as a
general epithet for ALL "on the Catholic side of the altar rail".

>> This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large
>> numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
>> government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
>> laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous
>> administration to put in his own clan.
>
>Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.
>
>> That and certain very public
>> celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
>> about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
>> the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
>> as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
>> a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
>> the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
>> Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's no
>> reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the
>> Americas).

That's fair though Toronto routinely also had July 12th "Orange"
parades at least as far as the late 1950s notwithstanding the fact
that in the 40s and 50s Toronto received 100000+ Polish and Italian
immigrants as well as people from other countries strongly associated
with Catholicism like the Croats.

>Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s; prior
>to that, there were a variety of Italian states. (Much the same was the
>case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of the
>Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)

Yes though my great-grandmother was an Alsatian born after 1871 who
despite that (which made her a German citizen) always considered
herself French even after her family emigrated to the US in the late
1880s - and was said to have sobbed for joy on 11/11/1918 since she
knew Alsace would be French again.

>The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
>course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to
>Christianity to fit it. Whatever concerns they must have had about
>persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
>lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
>still felt they could practice their religion here.

And mostly did. To the extent people left Judaism it was mostly due to
intermarriage with non-Jews rather than persecution.
>> Not everything melted. But what everybody found in America, at least
>> after the first generation which may have organized gangs for, er,
>> community protection, was that everybody got along because they never
>> gave a shit about European national rivalries to begin with (except
>> for soccer). Norwegians and Swedes get along. Pakistani and Indians
>> get along. We managed to find new rivalries but artificial attempts to
>> preserve old world culture couldn't possibly counteract that.

WHile what you say about Pakistanis and Indians is true, neither were
especially welcomed to Canada till after WW2 and roughly half the
Indians coming to Canada post-WW2 were Sikhs which from time to time
has caused problems with the Indian government since about 1/2 of
Sikhs seek an independent Sikh homeland particular under Modi who
could reasonably be described as a "Hindu fundamentalist" or at least
"Hindu Nationalist" meaning he's opposed to the concept of India as a
religious melting pot.
>I think this was largely true in Canada too, but with some exceptions.
>First, tensions between francophones and everyone else seem to have
>been a feature of life in this country since the British took over by
>the end of the Seven Years War. The francophones were never really
>assimilated but that's a delicate topic in our history so I honestly
>don't know to what extent the British even tried. I suspect they didn't
>think they could force assimilation too readily when the majority of
>the population were francophones.

Lord Durham's report in the 1830s advocated a level of
self-determination for the French culture in Quebec and tried to
dissuade any ideas of assimilation in London. It led directly to the
present status quo in Quebec though the government of Pierre Trudeau
was rather weak-kneed in responding to demands for additional Quebec
autonomy in the 1960s. (Notwithstanding the demands in both BC and AB
for "whatever Quebec get we demand!")

>Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
>when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in BC
>blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely people
>from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the Golden
>Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an independent
>Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions between Sikhs and
>Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a source of tension
>between Canada and India given that Modi deplores the idea of an
>independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to defend the right of
>Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.

Specifically that particular bombing was the biggest terrorist act
until 9/11. (Which destroyed 2 jumbo jets - one on the ground in
Japan, the other about 100 miles off the coast of Ireland)

>> >He's even right about the solution: it's time to find a way to shed
>> >ourselves of the people who don't want to live here in peace with us.
>> >He offers no specific program but I think some kind of policy that
>> >involves deporting non-citizens who run afoul of major laws would be
>> >a good start.
>>
>> Of course I agree.
>>
>> >A further enhancement would be to establish a list of
>> >offenses that, if committed, would justify stripping the person of
>> >any naturalized Canadian citizenship they may have acquired and then
>> >deporting them too.
>>
>> Conviction of a felony, lying on immigration papers about having
>> committed felonies in the old country (for crimes that would have been
>> crimes in the new world, not just laws oppressing citizens), the usual
>> reasons.
>>
>Yes.
>
>> >There would obviously need to be very serious
>> >discussions to figure out the details and establish safeguards to
>> >prevent misuse but I think the handwriting is on the wall and we need
>> >to start to move on this.
>>
>> Aren't these laws already on the books?
>
>These laws may exist but the politicians and/or courts are extremely
>reluctant to invoke them. As Horny Goat pointed out, they were used to
>deport Ernst Zundel, a neo-Nazi, back to Germany when he was a pain in
>the ass here, and they also TRIED to use it to deport some alleged
>Holocaust perpetrators back to Germany but largely failed. (For
>instance, Helmut Oberlander, a successful property developer in my
>hometown was supposed to be stripped of his citizenship and sent back
>to trial in Germany but he fought it in the courts; the legal
>precedings were still ongoing despite years of efforts when he finally
>died here in Canada at 104.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
>>>have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
>>>written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was
>>>interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing
>>>on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the
>>>article.)

>>https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
>>>He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
>>>for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
>>>racists. Look where that's gotten us!
>>The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.

>That's an interesting thing to say. I've never heard it stated that
>way but it's important to say it to make clear that the melting pot
>idea was an expectation of many Americans but not something mandated by
>the federal or state governments.

>>Many
>>immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly
>>motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
>>their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution and
>>war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had
>>essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be
>>forced to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't want
>>to go to.

>>But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to the
>>"melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th century
>>and much of the 20th century accused Catholics -- especially Irish
>>ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and therefore disloyal.

>I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all
>Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
>true?

It's an insult, accusing Catholics of being disloyal, having a higher
allegiance to the Church and its head of state the Pope than to their
own country. Have you ever heard a Catholic describe himself that way?

>>This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large
>>numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
>>government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
>>laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous
>>administration to put in his own clan.

>Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.

>>That and certain very public
>>celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
>>about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
>>the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
>>as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
>>a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
>>the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
>>Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's no
>>reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the
>>Americas).

>Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s; prior
>to that, there were a variety of Italian states.

Right. Columbus was from Genoa and as far as I know, when he set sail
isn't celebrated there with a national holiday.

>(Much the same was the
>case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of the
>Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)

Lied der Deutschen (Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles), the national
anthem, was originally expressing a desire for a free German people to
unify in a free republic in a liberal society. They were calling the
remaining princes and others opposed to unification selfish, putting
their own interest above society. Of course, the way Germany united --
under a strong man after yet another war -- wasn't what they had in mind,

It was a nice sentiment before it was perverted, and you can't go wrong
setting your national anthem to the music of Haydn rather than a
drinking song.

>The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
>course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to
>Christianity to fit it.

But that would have been un-American. We may have had cultural assimilation
to a greater or lesser extent, not religious assimilation. Which
Protestantism anyway? There are lots of choices, and some are very
different from each other.

No national church and no king are two of the greatest gifts our
Founding Fathers gave us.

>Whatever concerns they must have had about
>persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
>lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
>still felt they could practice their religion here.

It was nothing like Europe.
>>. . .

>Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
>when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in BC
>blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely people
>from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the Golden
>Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an independent
>Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions between Sikhs and
>Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a source of tension
>between Canada and India given that Modi deplores the idea of an
>independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to defend the right of
>Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.

He does? That worked out just great in Yugoslavia. He should keep his
mouth shut.

>>>. . .

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:07:35 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all
>>Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
>>true?
>
>It's an insult, accusing Catholics of being disloyal, having a higher
>allegiance to the Church and its head of state the Pope than to their
>own country. Have you ever heard a Catholic describe himself that way?

Frankly no - and my in-laws (at least my mother) are fairly strict
Catholics. Similarly my late wife's maid of honor (and best friend for
most of her life) is a fairly strict Catholic to the extent that she
never married because her sister has a fairly severe genetic disease
which her doctor has told her she would have a good chance of passing
on. I told my wife "so tell her to get her tubes tied and marry her
boyfriend..." though I happen to know that she's 'strict Catholic' to
the extent that were she to marry she would feel compelled to try to
have kids. (She's 60+ now so doubtful - too bad cause she would have
been a fantastic catch for the right guy)

My mother-in-law (who lives 2500 miles away) asked me to attend mass
for my wife on the anniversary of her passing which I did - and was
surprised how much overlap there was between the Anglican prayer book
and the current Catholic prayer book (which I heard they cribbed from
to a fair degree once they finally decided to make the standard North
American liturgical language English) and felt entirely at home until
I heard a lady in the next section over praying to Mary which of
course is a huge dividing point between Protestants and Catholics.

But then my wife was definitely a non-practicing Catholic when we
married (and never returned to it during our marriage) She knew I was
fairly serious in my beliefs though not an over the top "SAVE THE
WORLD!" type. But that I did take it seriously.

>>>This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large
>>>numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
>>>government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
>>>laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous
>>>administration to put in his own clan.
>
>>Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.
>
>>>That and certain very public
>>>celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
>>>about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
>>>the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
>>>as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
>>>a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
>>>the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
>>>Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's no
>>>reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the
>>>Americas).
>
>>Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s; prior
>>to that, there were a variety of Italian states.
>
>Right. Columbus was from Genoa and as far as I know, when he set sail
>isn't celebrated there with a national holiday.
>
>>(Much the same was the
>>case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of the
>>Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)
>
>Lied der Deutschen (Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles), the national
>anthem, was originally expressing a desire for a free German people to
>unify in a free republic in a liberal society. They were calling the
>remaining princes and others opposed to unification selfish, putting
>their own interest above society. Of course, the way Germany united --
>under a strong man after yet another war -- wasn't what they had in mind,
>
>It was a nice sentiment before it was perverted, and you can't go wrong
>setting your national anthem to the music of Haydn rather than a
>drinking song.
>
>>The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
>>course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to
>>Christianity to fit it.
>
>But that would have been un-American. We may have had cultural assimilation
>to a greater or lesser extent, not religious assimilation. Which
>Protestantism anyway? There are lots of choices, and some are very
>different from each other.
>
>No national church and no king are two of the greatest gifts our
>Founding Fathers gave us.
>
>>Whatever concerns they must have had about
>>persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
>>lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
>>still felt they could practice their religion here.
>
>It was nothing like Europe.
>
>>>. . .
>
>>Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
>>when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in BC
>>blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely people
>>from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the Golden
>>Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an independent
>>Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions between Sikhs and
>>Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a source of tension
>>between Canada and India given that Modi deplores the idea of an
>>independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to defend the right of
>>Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.
>
>He does? That worked out just great in Yugoslavia. He should keep his
>mouth shut.
>
>>>>. . .

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:07:35 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
> ><ahk@chinet.com>:
> >>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
> >>>have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
> >>>written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was
> >>>interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were
> >>>landing on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video
> >>>included in the article.)
>
> >>https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism
> >>
>
> >>>He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
> >>>for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
> >>>racists. Look where that's gotten us!
>
> >>The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.
>
> >That's an interesting thing to say. I've never heard it stated that
> >way but it's important to say it to make clear that the melting pot
> >idea was an expectation of many Americans but not something mandated
> >by the federal or state governments.
>
> >>Many
> >>immigrants were both trying not to stand out and they were highly
> >>motivated to integrate into society because they were forced out of
> >>their shithole countries in Europe. They were fleeing persecution
> >>and war after war after war. If you were on losing side, society had
> >>essentially collapsed. On the winning side, you were going to be
> >>forced to fight a war you didn't support in a country you didn't
> >>want to go to.
>
> >>But there are plenty of prominent examples in America contrary to
> >>the "melting pot" concept. Certain Protestants throughout the 19th
> >>century and much of the 20th century accused Catholics --
> >>especially Irish ethnics and immigrants -- of being Papists and
> >>therefore disloyal.
>
> >I've always assumed Papist and Catholic were exact synonyms, i.e. all
> >Catholics were Papists and all Papists were Catholics. Is that *not*
> >true?
>
> It's an insult, accusing Catholics of being disloyal, having a higher
> allegiance to the Church and its head of state the Pope than to their
> own country. Have you ever heard a Catholic describe himself that way?
>
Good point!

I wonder if loyal Catholics had an equivalent insult for the former
Catholics that followed Henry VIII into the Church of England? (I'm
guessing they didn't dare use such a term too openly given the
discrimination that soon came their way.)

> >>This was absurd given that the Irish had always been here in large
> >>numbers since the colonial period. To counter that, municipal
> >>government patronage was organized "tribally" before civil service
> >>laws. The new administration fired everybody hired by the previous
> >>administration to put in his own clan.
>
> >Tammany Hall and its equivalents in other cities.
>
> >>That and certain very public
> >>celebrations in America, like parades for Saint Patrick's Day, are
> >>about drinking (as if the Irish needed another excuse) and honoring
> >>the clan. It's not exactly celebrating a tradition in the old world
> >>as they don't have four major parades like Chicago. Columbus Day, as
> >>a federal government and state government public holiday (but not in
> >>the private sector) is to honor Italian ethnics. I don't believe
> >>Columbus leaving for the New World is celebrated in Spain (there's
> >>no reason to celebrate it in Italy which didn't have colonies in the
> >>Americas).
>
> >Italy itself wasn't unified into its modern form until the 1860s;
> >prior to that, there were a variety of Italian states.
>
> Right. Columbus was from Genoa and as far as I know, when he set sail
> isn't celebrated there with a national holiday.
>
I looked that up and it turns out that Columbus Day had been a national
"celebratory day" in Italy since 2004. I don't think it's a national
HOLIDAY - there's a separate list - so it may not be any bigger deal
than Mother's Day or Valentine's Day is here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_Italy

> >(Much the same was the
> >case with Germany which only took on its modern form at the end of
> >the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.)
>
> Lied der Deutschen (Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles), the national
> anthem, was originally expressing a desire for a free German people to
> unify in a free republic in a liberal society. They were calling the
> remaining princes and others opposed to unification selfish, putting
> their own interest above society. Of course, the way Germany united --
> under a strong man after yet another war -- wasn't what they had in
> mind,
>
> It was a nice sentiment before it was perverted, and you can't go
> wrong setting your national anthem to the music of Haydn rather than a
> drinking song.
>
Germany took some particularly tragic turns before finally getting on
its current good path after WWII....

> >The melting pot idea obviously didn't hold sway in other ways, of
> >course. America took in many Jews and they didn't all convert to
> >Christianity to fit it.
>
> But that would have been un-American. We may have had cultural
> assimilation to a greater or lesser extent, not religious
> assimilation. Which Protestantism anyway? There are lots of choices,
> and some are very different from each other.
>
> No national church and no king are two of the greatest gifts our
> Founding Fathers gave us.
>
Agreed!!
> >Whatever concerns they must have had about
> >persecution - and they were persecuted every other place they ever
> >lived so surely must have expected more of the same in America - they
> >still felt they could practice their religion here.
>
> It was nothing like Europe.
>
Most of the time, sure. But there was still discrimination, some of
which persists today based on what we hear from Jewish students at
Harvard and other major universities....

> >>. . .
>
> >Kinsella mentions another important moment in recent Canadian history
> >when he mentions the Air India bombing in 1985. Sikh separatists in
> >BC blew up an Air Canada flight to India containing almost entirely
> >people from India in their rage over Indira Gandhi's crushing of the
> >Golden Temple of Amritsar, as led by a Sikh firebrand seeking an
> >independent Sikh homeland. I believe there are still tensions
> >between Sikhs and Hindus over this horrific act and it remains a
> >source of tension between Canada and India given that Modi deplores
> >the idea of an independent Sikh state and Trudeau is careful to
> >defend the right of Sikhs to aspire to a homeland.
>
> He does? That worked out just great in Yugoslavia. He should keep his
> mouth shut.
>
I assume you mean Trudeau, as opposed to Modi, should keep his mouth
shut. I heartily agree. But Trudeau is shameless in pandering to people
whose votes he wants.

But you see the same thing with respect to Biden putting heavy pressure
on Israel over Gaza so as to avoid losing support in Michigan and
Minnesota. It's what politicians do when an election is coming up....

--
Rhino

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:13:00 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
>>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>>Warren Kinsella, a self-admitted long-time Liberal shill, seems to
>>>>have finally had his fill of multi-culturalism in this article
>>>>written in response to a demonstration in Toronto today that was
>>>>interrupted to announce that Iranian bombs and missiles were landing
>>>>on Israel. The crowd responded with *CHEERS*. (Video included in the
>>>>article.)

>>>>https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-is-this-at-long-last-the-result-of-multiculturalism

>>>>He's exactly right about the history: multiculturalism was pitched
>>>>for many years as a good thing and any opponents were demonized as
>>>>racists. Look where that's gotten us!

>>>The American melting pot concept wasn't a government program.

>I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has always
>been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many more
>states than Canadian provinces.

No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary
federation like the United States.

>. . .

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:13:00 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
>>>Sun, 14 Apr 2024 16:17:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has always
>>been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many more
>>states than Canadian provinces.
>
>No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary
>federation like the United States.
>
>>. . .
Fair enough - though you might think differently if you knew the
history of British Columbia, my home province. Got the same impression
when I visited the PEI Legislature back in 2004. The difference
between BC and PEI is that BC started small (population-wise) and
became relatively big (at least by Canadian standards) at 5 m vs PEI
which started small and remained small (population roughly 130k) - one
grew, the other really didn't. Land size wasn't really a factor in BC
as 90+% of the population is within 100 miles of Vancouver (which
happens to be the largest Canadian port not only on the west coast but
in Canada - and larger than #2, #3, #4, and #5 combined at least in
terms of annual tonnage moved)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>>>I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has always
>>>been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many more
>>>states than Canadian provinces.

>>No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary
>>federation like the United States.

>Fair enough - though you might think differently if you knew the
>history of British Columbia, my home province.

I stand corrected. Your province voluntarily federated with the Dominion
of Canada. Of course the price was construction of the Canadian Pacific
Railroad on that useless all-Canada route instead of heading toward St.
Paul to get to Chicago, which is what would have happened if they'd
federated with the United States instead.

>Got the same impression
>when I visited the PEI Legislature back in 2004. The difference
>between BC and PEI is that BC started small (population-wise) and
>became relatively big (at least by Canadian standards) at 5 m vs PEI
>which started small and remained small (population roughly 130k) - one
>grew, the other really didn't. Land size wasn't really a factor in BC
>as 90+% of the population is within 100 miles of Vancouver (which
>happens to be the largest Canadian port not only on the west coast but
>in Canada - and larger than #2, #3, #4, and #5 combined at least in
>terms of annual tonnage moved)

Ok. I just read the brief political history of Prince Edward Island on
its Wikipedia page. Federation into the Dominion of Canada wasn't
desired on the terms offered and they remained a colony and briefly
explored federation with the United States. Basically, they had a series
of financial scandals, starting with all of its land having been gifted
to political supporters of George III who intended to run the place
under feudal law. They were all bought out over close to a century. Then
they had an unaffordable debt for railroad construction.

They joined Canada and not the United States not as a voluntary
association of equals nor in the best interest of both parties, but
having been bought out. This is comparable to the purchases of Louisiana
and Alaska by the United States and not voluntary federation.

It set the stage for bailing Newfoundland out and its joining Canada,
which was not voluntary in any way.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:21:50 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
> ><ahk@chinet.com>:
> >>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has
> >>>always been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many
> >>>more states than Canadian provinces.
>
> >>No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary
> >>federation like the United States.
>
> >Fair enough - though you might think differently if you knew the
> >history of British Columbia, my home province.
>
> I stand corrected. Your province voluntarily federated with the
> Dominion of Canada. Of course the price was construction of the
> Canadian Pacific Railroad on that useless all-Canada route instead of
> heading toward St. Paul to get to Chicago, which is what would have
> happened if they'd federated with the United States instead.
>
> >Got the same impression
> >when I visited the PEI Legislature back in 2004. The difference
> >between BC and PEI is that BC started small (population-wise) and
> >became relatively big (at least by Canadian standards) at 5 m vs PEI
> >which started small and remained small (population roughly 130k) -
> >one grew, the other really didn't. Land size wasn't really a factor
> >in BC as 90+% of the population is within 100 miles of Vancouver
> >(which happens to be the largest Canadian port not only on the west
> >coast but in Canada - and larger than #2, #3, #4, and #5 combined at
> >least in terms of annual tonnage moved)
>
> Ok. I just read the brief political history of Prince Edward Island on
> its Wikipedia page. Federation into the Dominion of Canada wasn't
> desired on the terms offered and they remained a colony and briefly
> explored federation with the United States. Basically, they had a
> series of financial scandals, starting with all of its land having
> been gifted to political supporters of George III who intended to run
> the place under feudal law. They were all bought out over close to a
> century. Then they had an unaffordable debt for railroad construction.
>
> They joined Canada and not the United States not as a voluntary
> association of equals nor in the best interest of both parties, but
> having been bought out. This is comparable to the purchases of
> Louisiana and Alaska by the United States and not voluntary
> federation.
>
> It set the stage for bailing Newfoundland out and its joining Canada,
> which was not voluntary in any way.

I think you're missing some facts. Newfoundland got independence from
the British in 1907 and was a full Dominion. Then the Great Depression
came along and Newfoundland couldn't make a go of things and returned
to being dependent on the British. After WWII, Britain encouraged
Newfoundland to stand on its own two feet again. Three different
ideas materialized: become a standalone country again; join Canada or
join the US. A referendum was held offering all three options and the
"standalone country" option won. Since none of the choices got 50%
of vote, a second referendum was held offering only "standalone
country" or "join Canada", which were the two most popular options
from the 1st referendum. This time, "join Canada" won. If the referenda
results had been different, presumably Newfoundland's fate would also
have been different. I'd call that democracy in action!

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:21:50 -0000 (UTC)
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> >Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
>> ><ahk@chinet.com>:
>> >>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >>>I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has
>> >>>always been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many
>> >>>more states than Canadian provinces.
>>
>> >>No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary
>> >>federation like the United States.
>>
>> >Fair enough - though you might think differently if you knew the
>> >history of British Columbia, my home province.
>>
>> I stand corrected. Your province voluntarily federated with the
>> Dominion of Canada. Of course the price was construction of the
>> Canadian Pacific Railroad on that useless all-Canada route instead of
>> heading toward St. Paul to get to Chicago, which is what would have
>> happened if they'd federated with the United States instead.
>>
>> >Got the same impression
>> >when I visited the PEI Legislature back in 2004. The difference
>> >between BC and PEI is that BC started small (population-wise) and
>> >became relatively big (at least by Canadian standards) at 5 m vs PEI
>> >which started small and remained small (population roughly 130k) -
>> >one grew, the other really didn't. Land size wasn't really a factor
>> >in BC as 90+% of the population is within 100 miles of Vancouver
>> >(which happens to be the largest Canadian port not only on the west
>> >coast but in Canada - and larger than #2, #3, #4, and #5 combined at
>> >least in terms of annual tonnage moved)
>>
>> Ok. I just read the brief political history of Prince Edward Island on
>> its Wikipedia page. Federation into the Dominion of Canada wasn't
>> desired on the terms offered and they remained a colony and briefly
>> explored federation with the United States. Basically, they had a
>> series of financial scandals, starting with all of its land having
>> been gifted to political supporters of George III who intended to run
>> the place under feudal law. They were all bought out over close to a
>> century. Then they had an unaffordable debt for railroad construction.
>>
>> They joined Canada and not the United States not as a voluntary
>> association of equals nor in the best interest of both parties, but
>> having been bought out. This is comparable to the purchases of
>> Louisiana and Alaska by the United States and not voluntary
>> federation.
>>
>> It set the stage for bailing Newfoundland out and its joining Canada,
>> which was not voluntary in any way.
>
>I think you're missing some facts. Newfoundland got independence from
>the British in 1907 and was a full Dominion. Then the Great Depression
>came along and Newfoundland couldn't make a go of things and returned
>to being dependent on the British.

There was a ruinous financial scandal, from what little I've read, much
larger that Prince Edward Island's.

>After WWII, Britain encouraged
>Newfoundland to stand on its own two feet again. Three different
>ideas materialized: become a standalone country again; join Canada or
>join the US. A referendum was held offering all three options and the
>"standalone country" option won. Since none of the choices got 50%
>of vote, a second referendum was held offering only "standalone
>country" or "join Canada", which were the two most popular options
>from the 1st referendum. This time, "join Canada" won. If the referenda
>results had been different, presumably Newfoundland's fate would also
>have been different. I'd call that democracy in action!

London was highly opposed to the United States expanding, so British
Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland were blocked. And
again, the "join Canada" option came with a major resolution of the
massive debt. Not exactly voluntary.

Let's see if Quebec asks to leave Canada and federate with the US. I'll
bet London wouldn't care at this point.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 05:04:13 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Let's see if Quebec asks to leave Canada and federate with the US. I'll
>bet London wouldn't care at this point.

Likely true though even more likely Washington would never in a
gazillion years accept the Charter of the French Language. The US
would be far more likely to accept Scotland (EU and all) than Quebec.

(sarcasm off)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 05:04:13 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>Let's see if Quebec asks to leave Canada and federate with the US. I'll
>>bet London wouldn't care at this point.

>Likely true though even more likely Washington would never in a
>gazillion years accept the Charter of the French Language. The US
>would be far more likely to accept Scotland (EU and all) than Quebec.

>(sarcasm off)

The United States doesn't care. While we expect to conduct business in
English, we don't have the concept of national language in law. We
already have laws on the books with language translation requirements in
government programs if census demography reports a large enough ethnic
minority if English isn't the primary language. Quebec representatives
in Congress would have to accept that English would be spoken in debate.

Quebec wouldn't care. The joke was always they pretended to their fellow
Canadians that they spoke no English but spoke English with Americans.
We didn't conquer Quebec so they aren't holding a centuries-long grudge
against America which didn't even exist at the time.

Considering whatever dialect of English Scots speak isn't understandable
by anybody else (maybe in Appalachia), no, the English get to keep them
in their United Kingdom. They'd all have to learn the Received English
dialect as spoken on the Beeb first.