Multiculturalism Policy of Canada
“Recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage.”
It is with great irony that what has historically fallen under the banner of “progressive” liberal politics has transitioned to an antiquated piece of Canadian legislation.
For eight years running, PM Justin Trudeau has positioned himself and the Liberal Party as bastions of “progressive” politics. For an equal length of time, mainstream Canadian media have advanced the concept.
In consideration of official Multiculturalism, very little media analysis has been applied since ex-Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau forced the policy on what was originally an unsuspecting Canadian society.
Time changes everything, not the least of which is contemporary society’s view on diversity, social equity, systemic racism, and a plethora of related woke liberal buzzwords.
Multicultural Act, 3(1)h: “Foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures.”
For all eternity, Mr. Trudeau? Tell us kindly– what would occur at a point when these “diverse” cultures begin to supersede the identity of Canada’s original English, French and First Nations communities?
Tell us, CBC executives– does there exist a point in Canada’s historical trajectory when relative parity has been achieved? A moment at which the goals of so-called diversity have been accomplished? A time when ethnic and religious equality among Canadians has become a reality?
Or, as implicit in the Act, is systemic diversity a licence to steam roll right over “traditional” Canada, while racism, bigotry, xenophobia and homophobia function as tools to overpower Canada’s original settler communities?
Furthermore, if Pierre Trudeau was really a visionary statesman, why would he lack the vision to anticipate such a future scenario?
CAP will answer first. Because PET knew darn well what would transpire in the long term. Above all other social phenomenons, Trudeau Sr.’s Liberal government set up English Canada and its Anglo-European communities for a fall. Not the French component, mind you. For this community, retention of culture, identity, language and heritage was set up for continual advancement.
“Poll Finds Support For Deporting Non-Citizens Supporting Hatred, Terror; Mixed Feelings Over Canada’s Diversity”
A new poll published by the National Post lend credence to our conclusions:
“Among respondents, 56 per cent favoured a mixed view of diversity’s benefits. While agreeing that some elements of diversity can provide strength,”they backed the notion that it can also cause problems and conflict.”
A study released in 2011, the 40th anniversary of the establishment of a Multicultural Canada, illustrates a change in public perception eschewed by legacy media.
“Almost since the inception of the Multiculturalism Policy in 1971, multiculturalism has elicited debate.”
False. Since 1971, a patriot could could on one hand the number of articles from our media which critique Multiculturalism. Despite its existence as the greatest piece of social reformation in Canadian history, analysis and/or critiquing of the ideology and related legislation could fit on the head of a pin.
“Public opinion on diversity and multiculturalism indicates that Canadians are generally supportive of multiculturalism. A recent Focus Canada poll (2010) indicated that 86% of respondents viewed multiculturalism as important to Canada’s national identity.”
No more. The 2023 study indicates that just “24 per cent of Canadians see diversity as an unambiguous strength.”
Degree to which the CBC deliver such facts? Zero percent. From which we draw an ominous conclusion. In Justin Trudeau’s post-national state, “progression” is a selective vehicle. If our society and its controlling institution were truly progressive, some form of adaptability would be entertained in terms of rapidly changing demographics, et al.
CAP lay it on the line: Multiculturalism in Canada is, in fact, a political dinosaur, and if the Liberal government continue their lock on governance, the situation is going to get far worse.
Section 5(1)a: “Encourage and assist individuals, organizations and institutions to project the multicultural reality of Canada in their activities in Canada and abroad.”
What this really means, and has for the past half-century, is that government is to extract huge dollars from non-racialized tax-payers, and transfer the funds to bank accounts of ethnic not-for-profit organizations.
Today, some of these organizations wield tremendous power. For example, National Council of Canadian Muslims, who together with half-Pakistani citizen Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, established M103, also known as the “Islamophobia” motion.
Now that’s political power, and an exclusive one at that. In other words, while Canadian society changes all around us, Multiculturalism remains as cast-in-stone as the tenets of fundamentalist religions.
New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh says nothing. The Liberal Party of Canada say nothing. CBC remain mute, Globe & Mail play deaf and dumb, and so on and so forth.
Diversity is a strength for Canada? Just 24% agree. Diversity in Canada can cause problems in Canada? 56% agreement with the statement. See what we are driving at?
Our readers should be able to relate. But not government, media or our self-flagellating academic world. These institutions do not want progress. Not when it could potentially impede what has become Canada’s post-modern institutional mantra, “diversity and inclusion.”
Cultural Action Party [est.2016] speak of the tacit by-product of all this ideological malarky. Namely, a systemic attempt at disempowerment of Anglo-European Canada, and the transition of that power to “racialized” Canada.
This, fellow patriots, is Multiculturalism in practice— as opposed to theoretical diversity. Somewhere along the line, the ideology was hi-jacked. In 2023, it is functioning not as a policy, but rather as socio-political weaponry.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration provides strategic direction for implementing the Act and its Multiculturalism Program focuses on the following policy objectives:
“Building an integrated, socially cohesive society.”
A success? Not for all the rice in Justin Trudeau’s preferred nation of China. Considering our current state of society, Middle Eastern impact and all, no clear thinking Canadian could rightfully claim that a socially cohesive society has been established.
“White and non-white Canadians were almost in perfect agreement over the sentiment of diversity as a double-edged sword. Among Caucasians, 55 per cent backed the “diversity is both good and bad” position, while it attracted a slightly higher proportion of non-whites (56 per cent).”
Perfect agreement? You have got to be kidding. According to Trudeau, Singh, CBC and corporate media, the phenomenon is non-existent. According to them, social conflict exists within every strata of society.
Anglophone vs. Racialized. Christian against Muslim. Muslim against Jewish. Hetero vs. Homo, repeat ad infinitum. Can it be that media are fostering disharmony when the dynamic is far less than they portray?
“Of respondents, 51 per cent agreed with the statement that Canadian authorities should do more to ensure newcomers accept Canadian values.”
“An even higher proportion (55 per cent) endorsed the notion that Canada’s immigration policy should be premised on encouraging newcomers to embrace broad mainstream values and traditions, and leaving behind any beliefs that may be incompatible with that.”
After which CAP deliver a message deemed taboo: these desires are antithetical to the Multicultural Act of Canada(1988). In other words, it’s feasible to conclude that Multiculturalism has transitioned to an unwanted policy and ideology.
Wanna know when government and media will accept, or in any manner allude to this “radical concept?” CAP will tell you: on the 12th OF NEVER.
Governments only heed majority opinion within nations that function as authentic democracies. Trudeau’s Canada is not one of them.
Irony springs forth. Canada’s “progressive” Liberal government is only interested in progression when it facilitates comprehensive re-imaging of society. In other words, the fulfillment of a long-term agenda of national socio-political transformation.
By way of government and media propaganda, anything suggesting otherwise is an act of “racism.”