If People Truly Wanted to Stamp Out Racism, They Would Not Censor, Riot or Open Their Mouths Only to Let Stupid Things Fall Out of Them

But why let rationality insert itself into this fractious debate?:

A while back, Rex Murphy wrote an opinion piece titled “Canada is not a racist country, despite what the Liberals say.”

Here’s an excerpt:

“Most Canadians, the vast majority in fact, are horrified by racism and would never participate in it. We are in fact not a racist country, though to say so may shock some.
Do we not have welcoming immigration policies? Are our largest cities not a great montage of people from every corner of the world, of every colour and creed? Do we not, both in private and public, celebrate Canada’s multicultural nature? Do our schools not press the ideas of tolerance and acceptance toward all peoples and all faiths from kindergarten through high school? Is it not a doctrine of Canadian civic life that to end any trace of discrimination or racism is a cardinal rationale for the very existence of modern Canada.”

Rex Murphy is 100% correct here. Almost nobody – if they answered honestly as opposed to being cowed by fear of the outrage mob – would disagree with it.

And yet, Murphy’s reasonable common-sense column has now triggered a revolt within the National Post.


They’ve already put a disclaimer on it:

“This column by Rex Murphy provoked a strong reaction from readers. Upon review, it was determined that there was a failure in the normal editing oversight that columns should be subjected to. This issue has been identified and policies changed to prevent a repeat. We apologize for the failure. Please see these articles that offered a different perspective:”

This Rex Murphy:

Seattle, which has long been Antifa central, is having a more-than-curious week. The rash of protests and nights of looting and riots naturally visited the west coast city, where progressivism and its infinite causes always find a home. Early on, as protesters surrounded a downtown police precinct, the cops — presumably in the interest of keeping things peaceful — abandoned their station. ...

At first, they had their Utopia. The protesters even offered some of their food to the homeless. Yet the homeless took it all, leaving one disappointed occupier to tweet in anguish for immediate aid. Her plea had a Dickensian peal: “We need more food … please if possible bring vegan meat substitutes, fruits, oats, soy products, etc. — anything to help us eat.” These were solemn protesters, organic all the way to the revolution.

Things moved rather fast after that. The new “tenants” grabbed what they could to put up fences and barricades. Curiously for people one would assume would be innately pacifist, they also stationed armed guards, with fairly impressive weaponry, to keep people out.

One of the elements of taking over six full blocks of a modern city is that, along with the pavement and the streets, there are also people who live and work in the area. Not to worry: anyone who lives in CHAZ merely has to show the guards his or her identity papers to go to and from their homes or places of work. A minor inconvenience in a free society, I am sure all will agree. If you have identity papers, and you live or work in central Seattle, you merely show them to an assembly of strangers, some armed (and maybe hungry), in order to go about your business as a free citizen. Nothing could be more natural or liberating.

Meanwhile, there are also reports that within this freshly minted urban Eden, some measure of authority is showing itself. A local rapper, who’s now known by the nickname “the Warlord of CHAZ,” has effectively assumed responsibility for “policing” this no-police zone.

As he often does, this Maritime wordsmith encapsulates the mounting moral and logistical failures of the Khmer Rouge nouveau. The collective of angry, deluded and otherwise useless foot-soldiers for the abrasive left will be remembered as one might with the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution in China: violent crusaders show us how not to live. His previous foray into disabusing the blanket notion that Canada is systemically and outwardly racist is brave and honest one. If we discount the fact that a blackface-wearing groper was re-elected over a candidate whose granddad was American, that the Indian Act exists and if aboriginals lived in Rosedale, the chattering classes' perspective on them would be quite different, that immigrants are not encouraged to embrace North American values but retain old hatreds and thus create fragmented communities that exist outside the whole and that political multiculturalism is a moral and practical failure, then, yes, Canada is quite an open society and depicting every township as a hotbed of inveterate racism is inaccurate and hurtful.

This rubbed someone at the National Post the wrong way and ultimately a disclaimer was put at the opening of that column as though Canadians were children and needed to be guided through something and even shielded from it.

Way to bring attention to that article and have widely disseminated and read.




That might incur Quebec's wrath:

“Given Prime Minister Laurier’s history with the Chinese head tax, with blocking immigration from India, signing an order-in-council banning black immigration, will you change the name of the Laurier club?” Trudeau was asked.

He gave a response but not really an answer.

(Sidebar: quelle surprise.)

“We recognize that over the past decades and generations, Canada has not done well enough,” Trudeau said.

“I apologized in the House for the Komagata Maru. We’ve made apologies for the head tax, we’ve made a direct acknowledgment of the very, very many mistakes Canada has made in the past.”

Trudeau said those acknowledgments of the past must be matched by actions to deal with systemic racism now. That may, or may not, include changing names.

He's your mistake, Quebec.




I shudder to think how an educated and sensible candidate like her will suffer the fate of other politicians who don't tow the party line:

Lewis is winning praise for her recent statement on Black Lives Matter, where she slammed the group for calling for the defunding of the police, and ripped their attack on the Western nuclear family structure.

Here’s an excerpt of her widely-praised letter:

“We have a real opportunity to discuss real change.

This, unfortunately, has not happened.

Instead, we are seeing the discussion taken over by activists with radical proposals that will only make the problems we face worse.

The organization Black Lives Matter, for example, has used current public goodwill and earnest cries for justice by demanding that we “defund the police.”

Among their other demands? They want the “disruption” of the “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”

As I have stated in my platform, I believe that the family is a cornerstone of society. We should be working to strengthen families, not weaken them.

I am all for a robust debate on how best to make Canada a nation where everyone has the opportunity to thrive and prosper in freedom and security. But removing the foundation of what makes a healthy society is no place to start.

So, while I believe that we must fight inequality, I cannot support a group like Black Lives Matter in totality, because I strongly disagree that their proposed actions will create meaningful solutions.

There are both historic and systemic reasons why Black families in North America are suffering, including the history of slavery, destructive welfare policies, and even crime bills put forward by Bill Clinton in the 90s.

But the inequality created by the impact on Black families does not mean we should destroy all families in order to create equality.

She will be destroyed.