Vlad Tepes lives in the Frozen North — Ottawa, to be precise. He’s convinced that his country is responsible for foisting modern politically correct Multiculturalism on the rest of the Western world, and has made the following video to illustrate his point:
Blame Canada? Sounds good to me…
The notes accompanying the video are below the jump.
– – – – – – – – –
The fact is, for all of liberal democracy until the birth of political correctness as a political force within free nations it was always understood that making one choice logically precluded certain other choices. It was also understood what freedom of religion actually meant.
It meant that a person was free to practice their religion without fear of the state pounding on their doors and burning them at the stake for calling their gods by other names or denominations.
It never meant that they could break the secular laws of the state under the flimsy excuse that their religion mandates it. In fact, it should be considered a fantastic thing by most people merely that they have the choice to make the choice.
Under Mulroney, Canada made a catastrophic mistake. I said so then, and maintain it now.
We allowed a man who chose to be a Sikh, to wear his turban with the official uniform of the RCMP.
Clearly Mulroney, as much as I liked him then as now, did not get the big picture.
That Sikh had the choice in Canada of being a Sikh without fear from the state or the Muslims next door. He had the choice of joining the RCMP and not being refused because he was a Sikh. But in no way should he have not had to make the choice between the uniform and the Turban.
My own experience with Sikhs has been quite positive. One was my boss and another my colleague when I was working for a British-based industrial gas company in New Jersey, and later one was my personal physician. Very upright and competent folks, and quite willing to assimilate, their turbans notwithstanding. Nor did they try to foist their beliefs on anyone not of their creed. As far as I’m concerned, they’re welcome to their headgear.
@ Pappa Whiskey – I think you’re missing the point. This opens the flood gates to allow everyone to demand that their culture and religion be represented and respected. I don’t care if it’s Goofy, he’d still need to wear the official uniform and not add his own personal touches. You are being very selfish in your mindset. What’s good for one will have to be good for everyone.
I realized something. In my country, if you can get 20,000 people to join, you can form a religion. So, who wants to move here and make a religion in which paying taxes is a sin, obeying stupid government regulation is the road to hell and the like? 😀 Since my country is in the EU, I will just sue my government for enforcing their own laws and go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to mandate that the followers of my religion have their right to freedom of religion infringed by tax paying and regulation obeying.
Also, since the Orthodox Church gets funding from the government, I think I could sue my government under the discrimination statute of the EU that they must provide me with equal funding. I mean, since we’re making a mockery out of our legal systems, let’s do it too.
Mr. Tepes is correct, except that Mulroney inherited official multiculturalism from the Trudeau government. It had been introduced by Trudeau as an attempt to defuse Quebec separatism.
Don’t mistake me for a multiculturalist here, but the British army has for years had regiments which included turbans as an integral part of the uniform, and let’s not forget the kilt as well!
I don’t actually have a problem with this ruling, BUT I can see where it might lead.
I have more of a problem with the RCMP’s push to include “visible minorities” generally.
Also, I would draw readers’ attention to a recent ruling that allowed Sikh schoolchldren to carry “ceremonial” knives with them to school. THAT is multicult gone mad…
Luke 22 commands that all Christians carry a sword, wonder what they’ll make of that?
In hoc signo vinces
Canada can claim the credit for giving the world the greatest live rock band – Rush, but for Canada to claim the dubious honour of giving the Western world, modern politically correct Multiculturalism is taking liberties.
“We`ve taken care of everything
The words you hear the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It`s one for all and all for one
We work together common sons
Never need to wonder how or why.”
“Look around this world we made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the Brotherhood of Man
Oh what a nice contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the Red Star proudly high in hand”
Viking, what are Christians waiting for in suing? The way to defeat this nonsense is to do ridiculous things like this, not act with common sense and expect others to follow. They won’t.
I couldn’t agree more, and have long been advocating stunts like this. Unfortunately -and, unlike Sikhs it seems – I’m not about to use my kid to make a political point. It’s tough enough being a kid as it is..
But, having said that, kirpans and other weapons like golf clubs and Desert Eagles, for me fall under the Right to Bear Arms (NOT “religious freedom”) in any case, except that we forbid such rights in places like schools.
The Sikhs who defend their position use the fallacious “slippery slope argument”, saying that if we ban them in schools then we will ‘end up’ banning them everywhere.
Vikings, yes, but in Europe, we don’t have the right to bear arms, but we have the right to freedom of religion. I think I should add to the list of things that my religion sees as sins the not carrying of weaponry.
And hey, you should use the same fallacious argument about letting your kid go to school with a Desert Eagle. Any regulation on carrying guns will lead to banning them everywhere. 😀
He’s convinced that his country is responsible for foisting modern politically correct Multiculturalism on the rest of the Western world
Canada has no influence in the world. It is an invisible country. Even the events that have shaped Canadian history were all imports – the British/French conflict, the American Revolution, the US Civil War and the Fenian invasion, WW1 & 2, the equality movements in the US in the 1960s, etc. Canada did not open itself up to non-European immigration until after the US set the example.
Multiculturalism did not exist until after the Second World War when the US became the political, economic, and cultural driving force of the West.
Quite right. The Sikh exception started the slide on the slippery slope.
It’s irrelevant that the Sikhs may be “nice guys”. In a normal country, nice guys don’t get to break the law just because they are nice guys. It’s a matter of principle. That’s why laws and regulations exist. Precisely to avoid any potentially inflammatory discussions about who should be permitted what and who should not.
Since being nice is a highly subjective judgement, and next to nobody thinks of themselves as not being nice, how can you prevent anyone, Muslims and assorted thugs included, to claim the Sikh precedent once it has been set ?
As for the British Army, this is an entirely different matter. No one forced it to yield to some foreign customs because of their so-called “human rights”. Those uniforms were chosen by the Army itself, at a time when Britain was an imperial power and maintained authority over its colonies.
Having turbans or whatever within the British Army meant that Britain ruled over the turban-wearers, the visible proof being that they served as soldiers under the orders of British generals.
Now that the Empire no longer exists and that colonialism is a rude word, the request, by immigrant turban-wearers, to be exempted of the common rule means exactly the opposite : that they wish to establish an autonomous entity within their host country, i.e., to colonise it.
well, RV, he is Norwegian so maybe some sort of battleaxe or just a really big Norse hammer 😀
your comment reminded me of the time Del Boy Trotter tried to market motorcycle helmets with turbans on top to Sikhs… as I believe Sikhs have been exempt from wearing them for years in Britain!
Ok, so Canada is a political correct society, and they strive to make things easier for their new arrivals, but how has Canada managed to export PC to the rest of the world?
I think it’s more accurate to claim that the politicians in charge in the western world in the last 40-50 years have listened more to their own conscience and adjusted their policies accordingly.
How did the black people in America gain their freedom, was it because ordinary Americans were disgusted with the treatment that the blacks received in the south in the 50-60 and demanded change, or was it because the socialists/communists in America plotted to emancipate the blacks by means of deception and stealth?
Yes, I bet that the Swedish and Norwegian governments are ethnically cleansing their own people out of their own conscience and goodness. I just burst out in laughter.
Also, the 1964 CRA made discrimination illegal, it didn’t have anything to do with real civil rights. Still, kritisk naivity provided me with yet another good giggle.
Viking, I forgot to tell you, don’t forget to give him one of those horned helms!
Well good for you RV.
And by the way there are no ethnic cleansing going on in Western Europe at the moment. Ethnic cleansing means and I’ll quote from encyclopaedia Britannica;
“the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.”
The way I see it the only ones who’re advocating ethnic cleansing in Western Europe are people on the extreme right who wants to forcibly deport everyone who’s slightly darker than the most tanned Caucasians.
And by the way Vikings didn’t actually wear horned helmets that is just a myth that has caught as a result of popular fiction depicting them that way.
First time I’ve had the energy to come over here and read the comments…
Your law that requires 20K people in order to form a religion is much more strict than ours. Here. you can be the Religion of Me, Myself and I.
You can order your “Reverend” diploma online for a few dollars. Certain states like Nevada allow cheap incorporation if you want to be “The Church of Me, Myself and I, Inc.”
What that does to your non-profit status, I’m not sure. But you do have to fill out the forms (and they are from Bureaucrat Hell) for your 501(c)3 non-profit status which allows your church various slide-arounds when it comes to paying taxes.
Unfortunately, this huge wad of paper must be accompanied by a “filing fee” of $850.00
However, if you just want to wing it, “fly by the seat of your pants”, as the old pilots used to say, then you can dispense with all that and just refer to yourself as the Rev. Rebellious vanilla.
I do believe the Rev. Jesse Jackson is a umm….self-made Rev.
See, America is the land of the golden fleec(ing).
“There are no ethnic cleansing going on in Western Europe at the moment.”
Ever heard of white flight, Kritisk Borger ? By your own admission, ethnic cleasing is “forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups.”
Do you think that burning non-Muslim’s cars, constantly insulting them, threatening to kill them, sexually harrasing and raping their wives, daughters and mothers, beating their children, robbing them, breaking into their homes, knifing them, killing them with bare fists, kicking their heads like footballs, burning buses with people inside, shooting the policemen trying to protect European indigenous populations, could somehow be defined as “forcible” actions ? And if not, what could ?
Do you think that claiming French territory as Algerian, or African territory, shows a will to attain “forcible displacement of people belonging to the French ethnic group” ? And if not, what would ?
By your own definition, ethnic cleansing also involves “the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship”.
This has actually begun, by the systematic desecration of churches and christian cemetaries, by the destruction of an ancient English cemetary, next to a church changed into a mosque, and by the claim for Muslim areas in European cemetaries.
What Muslims fail to tell you, when they make this claim, is that a Muslim tomb can never be moved, ever. Whereas Christians routinely destroy their own tombs, once people are long dead and forgotten. The outcome is obvious : if Muslim burial areas are accepted, Christian cemetaries will be totally wiped from the earth at some point in the future.
Bottom line : you don’t need to mass-murder people in gas chambers in order to achieve ethnic cleansing.
kritisk, it’s irrelevant if they actually wore horned helmets. It’s just a way to make bogus idiotic claims to expose governmental stupidity.
About the ethnic cleansing bit. Population replacement immigration is actually the same thing. I guess you missed when the governments stated that their policy is to alter the ethnic makeup of teir countries, which under the UN Convention on genocide, fits perfectly. Genocide means the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, religious group, which is exactly what immigration is doing. And deliberately inflicting on a group’s conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part fits the bill of genocide, not ethnic cleansing, so sorry, my mistake. I used ethnic cleansing, even if genocide would have fit the UN definition since that’s the real outcome of things. I won’t even go into how many ways mass immigration breaches the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that are breached each time when they can’t govern themselves, which is the truth since other people vote in the elections of them and they are denied nationality by making everyone British or Norwegian. But again, you’re the typical liberal that likes the anti-white laws. Your take on discrimination was clear when you found discrimination evil, but it’s ok if done to increase the representation of minorities in the workforce, which means discriminating against the majority.
Dymphna, you can do that in my country too with the NPOs, but I want to make a whole religion, not become a religious leader. Basically, my thing would have the same benefits as any other religion – Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, whatever.
Robert, don’t worry, if Europeans were brown, kritisk would find it ethnic cleansing. Just like he sees discrimination as good when done against white people and bad if done against non-whites. lol
Maybe you could supply me with a link where I can see for myself that the Norwegian and Swedish governments have gone on record and stated that their intended goals are to change the racial makeup of their nations?
The Norwegian government is actually encouraging Norwegian women to have more children. Norway has some of the most generous maternity benefits around. A new mum is able to stay at home for one year after she’s given birth with almost a full salary. How does that compare to your claim that the Norwegian government is trying to ethnically cleanse Norwegians from the face of this earth?
And another little fact for you, Norwegian women’s birth-rates have actually gone up considerably lately as a result of more mature women giving birth.
And there is a big difference between ethnic cleansing and white flight. White flight is a voluntary act in which white people move somewhere else. It does not include violence or physical force, ethnic cleansing is however not. Maybe you should get your terminology right?
Robert Marchenoir said…
“Do you think that burning non-Muslim’s cars, constantly insulting them, threatening to kill them, sexually harrasing and raping their wives, daughters and mothers, beating their children, robbing them, breaking into their homes, knifing them, killing them with bare fists, kicking their heads like footballs, burning buses with people inside, shooting the policemen trying to protect European indigenous populations, could somehow be defined as “forcible” actions ? And if not, what could ?”
You have crime in any major city whether it’s in Europe or whether it’s in the US. It doesn’t mean that it’s ethnic cleansing. Have these thugs gone around to every French household in these areas and given the French/whites an ultimatum to move out, or else face the music?
Maybe you could supply me with some links?
what about the pre-Roman Dacian religion? I’m sure that would be a popular resurrection:)
I just have one question: Jewish flight from Europe, do you think that could have anything to do with Islamic violence and threats of violence?
I just have one question: Jewish flight from Europe, do you think that could have anything to do with Islamic violence and threats of violence?”
I can’t answer for Jewish emigrants that’s something you have to ask them about. But I will say that there is a difference between moving away from somewhere because of high crime levels and being forced to move away because you don’t belong to the correct race. Kind of like what happened to some Palestinians in Israel in 1948.
“Maybe you could supply me with some links?”
Sure. It’s right under your nose. It’s called Gates of Vienna. Didn’t you notice a series called “Cultural enrichment” here ?
Read it, pay some attention to what is reported on this blog, follow the provided links, do your own research, and don’t be disingenuous. I’m a bit skeptical about your request for “links” when I read the following :
“Have these thugs gone around to every French household in these areas and given the French/whites an ultimatum to move out, or else face the music?”
No. The Nazis didn’t, either. Would you say that the Holocaust counted as ethnic cleansing ?
Robert Marchenoir said…
“Sure. It’s right under your nose. It’s called Gates of Vienna. Didn’t you notice a series called “Cultural enrichment” here ?
Are you for real?? So the cultural enrichment news found on Gates of Vienna according to you is solid proof that there is a campaign of ethnic cleansing going on in Europe? I don’t think so my friend you’ve got to do better than that.
“No. The Nazis didn’t, either. Would you say that the Holocaust counted as ethnic cleansing ?”
No I would say that the Holocaust was genocide.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert and Kritisk —
The intense nature of this discussion does not imply that name-calling has become acceptable. I’ve redacted and reposted the last three comments, but if this behavior continues I’ll just have to delete them, because I don’t have time for this. Y’all restrain yourselves.
Robert: Kritisk is a progressive/liberal. He believes these things, much as we might wish he didn’t. There’s no arguing with true faith.
Kritisk: I, too, find your arguments less than honest. By your standards, no amount of violence of an immigrant ethnic group against the natives would be called “ethnic cleansing” unless it were organized by an actual state government. No matter how many people were robbed, raped, beaten, and murdered on the basis of their race, and no matter how many districts were emptied of their native inhabitants as a result, it would not be “ethnic cleansing” unless Pakistan or Turkey or Algeria had ordered that the operations be carried out.
I find this argument to be disingenuous, to put it charitably — even for a liberal.
Robert Marchenoir said…
“You’ve got to do better than that.”
That’s what I thought, Kritisk Borger.
You’re not interested in truth.
I have thousands of links which I gladly provide to intellectually honest people all over the world, when asked in a candid and polite way. This service is not provided to others.
You’d better go comment at Islamic sites, where you’ll find yourself with like-minded people. You’ll also find there, by the way, ample proof of what I’m saying.
I asked you a fair a question, can you back up your claims with factual sources? And what happens? You go completely off the rails and start abusing me. That’s very mature behaviour indeed.
You claim that there is a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Caucasians going on in Europe at the moment. Now in real life when you make a controversial claim it’s normal procedure to back it up with facts if you wish to be taken seriously.
You’ve shown that you’re unable to do so, and in the process you’ve shown the rest of us [redacted].
Robert Marchenoir said…
You wrote that the Holocaust did not count as ethnic cleansing because it is genocide.
I do not discuss with [people] who twist words and logic to score points (or so they think) on the Internet.
kritisk, you want another EU funding debate like spanking? Really, I’m bored of arguing with you, so I will just ignore you from now on. Also, giving money to have kids isn’t that great of a thing and non-ideologues know it. Tax deductions are the way to do it and doing away with affirmative action for women and all the other crap. But as I said, from now on, I won’t bother to debate you since it’s too time consuming and isn’t providing me any more entertainment like it did at first.
Oh no, the great RebelliousVannilla has decided that she doesn’t want to debate me anymore cause she’s run out of credible arguments and she knows it. Well I guess it’s become somewhat of a routine for the “great one” to pull out of debates when the going gets too tough for her and this is just another one of those.
Well anyway, imagine not being given the privilege of debating the great Rebellious anymore, the burden is just too much for me to bear…
And by the way little rebel, giving tax breaks to women who have just given birth doesn’t make much sense, as most of them are not working.
krtisk, you give tax breaks to the man who does work and takes care of her. And those deductions would be until the child is 18. Obviously, if you’re a single mother you don’t get squat considering that this stupidity needs to get discouraged. And I don’t debate you anymore because it will turn in another EU funds debate, in which I was right as I cited from the EU multiannual budget, not some sites on which anyone can say anything. Obviously, you ignored that thread from that moment on. lol. It would be the same here and I’m really not in the mood to bother with it, especially since you ignore everything that you don’t like. But again, you need that considering you must hold on to the farce that your opinions are.
Hehehe… Rebellious, I see that you have still not recovered from the EU debate. You just hate to be proven wrong, which of course you were that time even though you try to convince yourself otherwise.
The source that I was quoting from in that particular instance was actually the Department for European affairs of the Romanian Government, and not like you claim;
“not some sites on which anyone can say anything”.
I’ll repost the source for you here;
“Romania has absorbed more than 10 percent of the European grants allocated to it in 2007-2009 that was used for projects worth 8.4 billion euros, the Department for European affairs of the Romanian Government reports, citing from a recent report of the European Commission. “
But that’s Ok little rebel, if convincing yourself that you were right somehow makes you feel better then I’m not going to ruin it for you.
Actually, you didn’t – what you cited was a news portal(This is the site of what you’re talking about. I gave you the multi-annual budget of the EU with a citation from the EU reports themselves. So you either think that some news portal has it right over the EU itself who does fake reporting or you are wrong and can’t admit it.
So there it is, kritisk burger(with ham or not).
If you chose to ignore it – the EU budgets from their source. Since you replied after I posted it, it means that you are simply irrational and prefer to ignore facts and believe whatever you want. So as you see, I have no reason to debate with people like you. Debating you is like trying to convince a communist that nationalizing agriculture was wrong – it’s pointless.
Tell me are you deliberately being dense or is that just the way you are? Your Government has reported those figures, citing an EU report. Did you see where it said “Department for European affairs of the Romanian Government”?
Yes, it’s taken from a news portal, you know that’s were news tends to be presented to the public.
Somehow I think that the Department for European affairs of the Romanian Government is a lot more competent of reporting Romania’s total EU grants in the period 2007 -2009 than an immature 19 year old girl who thinks she knows it all.
But I guess for some people it’s just too hard to face up to facts.
I wish you a speedy recovery.
And I cited the source of the funding which is the EU and their multi-annual budget. I suppose that the official site of an institution where they present their budget is the most reliable source of information about their activities.
The truth of the matter is simple. The news portal is wrong since the EU is giving out completely different information than the one cited there. So your source is wrong, just like you. Or well, you are insane and you believe a site that cites someone citing someone else or the exact source related to the funds that each country gets. I doubt that I’m the dense one, kritisk-(ham)burger.
Oh gee, thank you for clearing that up for us Rebellious.
I should have known, silly me. Of course the figures that the “Department for European affairs of the Romanian Government” presented based on an extensive report commissioned by the EU to find out how much funding Bulgaria and Romania received in the period 2007-2009 are false. The politicians and bureaucrats who are employed by the Romanian Government and the EU are according to RV clueless as to how much Romania has received from the European Union.
The same thing goes with the various Romanian internet portals which have presented this information (there are several of them) they have deliberately lied and manipulated the numbers. And how do we know this? Well because Rebellious Vanilla, wonder child extraordinaire, has reached this shocking conclusion after some “serious” investigation on the internet on her part.
RV, did you by any chance happen to see that the reports that you are using as “evidence” clearly states that this is, and I’ll quote here for your benefit;
“Pre-allocation by members states for certain EU support 2007-2013”
Now what could this mean?
Well, pre-allocation means that the EU will reimbursement certain expenses that the Romanian Government has incurred. It is not like you seem to think, a final figure of total grants that have been awarded to Romania in the period 2007-2009.
And furthermore, this document only shows proposed pre-allocation (not a definitive pre-allocation) for certain EU support (not total EU support). But most importantly it’s a proposed budget which was drawn up before Romania even joined the EU. It’s not a document that shows how much Romania received in 2007-2009.
But, then again knowing you RV, you’ll probably come up with a “cunning” explanation as to why this is not the case.
And yeah, that was one mega “EU funding debate like spanking” that you showed us here. Your brilliance and ability to see things clearly just amazes me.
I’m still waiting for you to quote a budget or any EU data, not news reports. I mean, remember the video of the angry white dude with the AR15 that turned out to be black? When you cite something, you cite official things, not merely he-she said, which is what news reports are. And no, your link was wrong since it claimed completely different figures for cohesion, agriculture and the like than the EU budget, which is impossible. Either the news report or the EU budget is wrong. They can’t both be right, especially since the figures are three times bigger in your report than in the actual budget.
And pre-allocation of funds in a multi-annual budget means setting that money aside for a specific purpose before hand, not what you said. But you should know this, since you run a business. It’s common sense accounting – preallocation means setting funds aside and it works the same with non-tariff based measures to prevent trade from people you don’t like as a government. You can quote EU budgets related to spending if you want or things that don’t contradict them.
But again, this is why debating you is boring, mister burger.
Yeah that’s right RV, the media are all liars. Can’t trust a single word of what they say. It’s all one big conspiracy and the only one who really knows the truth is you.
And I have already showed you sources that prove that the total sum of grants that is going to be awarded to Romania is 84.5 billion euros. Now 10 percent of 84 billion euros are 8.45 billion euros, just like the article says.
I’ll quote from another post;
“Well let’s have a look at the overall sum that Romania is scheduled to receive shall we? Now in the period 2007-2013 Romania is scheduled to receive a total sum of € 84.5 billion. These funds are separated into three categories, which are as follows;
54.4 billion € in Structural Funds,
18 billion € in Cohesion Funds
12.183 billion € in agricultural funds
Now if you add all these sums together you’ll find that it comes to € 84.5 billion, Now 10 percent of 84.5 billion is 8.4 billion, which, as you already know Romania received in 2007 -2009, just like the newspaper article said, but which you for some strange reason just won’t accept.”
But, then again arguing with someone who uses Borat logic like you is simply meaningless.