Not the last time either

They ran the same hit-piece on Christian Conservatives in the Globe, this time last year. Same reporter too I think. She must've saved herself some time. Good for her.

I don't want to echo the same talking points over and over about a bias against religious people, but I wonder who deserves more blame... the reporters who publish such non-stories, the editors who place those non-stories in big huge letters on the front page or the voters who actually take such anti-religious bias into the voting booth with them, determined to essentially eliminate religious people (well, Christians at least) from public office?

Why the despair?

I've never seen Canadian Conservatives as heartbroken and let-down as I see them today.

Never during the entire reign of Jean Chretien did I see them this unhappy.

Is Paul Martin really worse than Jean Chretien?

Yes, his political instincts are worse, making it all the more frustrating that he's barely hanging on to power, but is he really worse for the country than Jean Chretien?

There are two conflicting issues at play here.

Firstly, Paul Martin HAS tightened up certain kinds of federal spending since he got into office. He's actually eliminated quite a few programs and concentrated that money towards traditional social spending and new projects. He's probably even made the bureaucracy less corrupt (Budget 2004 - the spending comptrollers and stuff). So basically, he's probably less corrupt, but since he has "ideas", i.e. new ways to spend money, he's better in one way and worse in another.

Second, because of the current dynamics of the house, and because of Chuck Cadman's unwillingness to side with the Conservatives, (I don't blame Belinda for the Parliamentary math since David Kilgour evens her out) Canada is obviously presented with the worst possible realistic governing scenario: the Liberals propped up by the NDP.

Jean Chretien would probably be spending just as much if he were in such a scenario, so how does this reflect poorly on Paul Martin?

I think it's only because Martin projects far more desperation.

He makes himself look incredibly weak... weak enough to make his enemies smell blood and then find themselves unable to capitalize by the narrowest of margins (damn you, Chuck Cadman!).

Homosexuality equivalent to heart disease?

Interesting story on CBC.ca right now about a gay pride day and a heterosexual pride day taking place in Yellowknife, during the month of June.

I'm sure most gays and lesbians weren't happy with their spokesperson up in Yellowknife... here's how he reacted to the separate day for heterosexuals:

Will the days and weeks marking physical ailments, such as heart disease and strokes, be paired with an equal number of days that will celebrate good health?

Wouldn't this be something someone who was of the belief that being gay was a disease would say? It sure sounds that way.

This reminds me of a group I heard of a few months ago... which was a group of gays against abortion under the theory that genes and other factors could determine the sexual orientation of a child in the womb and would therefore possibly promote abortions of genetically homosexual children. They said they were pro-life in case such a situation ever arose... essentially conceding and saying that it was basically a disease like other diseases that were possible to detect in the womb. It was a pretty shocking story, because the group was standing for the rights of gay unborn children and not really for the rights of other unborn children. Why not be consistent and either oppose or support the "right" to abortion in both circumstances?

Cadman - Again

I haven't really thought of anything to do with Canadian politics since this past Thursday when the budget vote took place, and I wasn't planning to write about anything to do with Canadian politics for a while, but today I came across something which really provides some insight into Chuck Cadman's character.

I think it's safe to assume that the Conservative Party's unwillingness to intervene in his nomination battle last year had something to do with how he voted. It's also starting to become general knowledge that Cadman himself challenged and defeated an incumbent Reform MP in 1997.

I did a quick search today to find out who that Reform MP was and her name was Margaret Bridgman. I plugged her name along with Cadman's into Google and I came across one of her Member Statements in the House of Commons on October 28, 1994 (third statement down):

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1992 in my riding of Surrey North a 16-year old boy named Jesse Cadman was murdered by Isaac Deas who at the time was a juvenile and on a court imposed curfew.

Since that tragedy Jesse's father Chuck has become very active in trying to change the Young Offender's Act. I have received over 1,000 letters from my riding expressing support for Chuck and his group CRY, or Crime, Responsibility and Youth.

Chuck's latest initiative is a lawsuit against the father of Isaac Deas and the crown for failing to enforce the court imposed curfew. Had that curfew been enforced, Jesse would be alive today.

I support Chuck Cadman in assigning responsibility to parents who seemingly have not made reasonable effort to exercise parental control. I support his effort to hold the crown accountable to those who are under its supervision in the community. I ask the Minister of Justice to make himself accountable to the Canadian public and heed the concerns of citizens like Chuck Cadman.

There she was, representing the needs and wishes of her constituents, paying special attention to the Cadman family and what did Cadman do to repay her? He challenged her for the nomination. Between 1997 and 2004 he did alright, and then in 2005, when the party which had Youth Crime policies most inline with his own beliefs was on the brink of assuming power by defeating the current soft-on-crime government in a confidence vote, he prolonged their stay in power, for a few months and maybe even for a few years.

PS.

What happens to Mike Duffy's show on CTV - "Countdown"?

Cadman

Chuck Cadman has completely lost his moral compass.

He was elected to the House in 1997 as a Reform MP.

The thing that characterized Reform MPs from back then was their disgust and disapproval of the way things were run in Ottawa by the Tories and the Grits.

In the past few weeks, it has become absolutely clear that Cadman is not only now not disgusted by the behavior of the Liberals, but that he approves of it.

From being a Reformer, Cadman, through his newfound media fame has quickly acted like a longstanding member of the establishment.

When Stronach jumped the floor to the Liberals on Tuesday, Cadman shrugged it off. "You can't be surprised by this kind of stuff... You just have to expect it" or something like that was what he said. No outrage. No disgust that the Liberals were handing out cabinet posts shortly before a confidence motion.

Yesterday, when he was questioned about the bribes for Grewal, he gave the same response, saying how this type of stuff would NOT effect how he would vote.

Why wouldn't it matter???

He's never seemed to show any outrage or disapproval over how the Liberals have spent billions of dollars in an extended election campaign. He just voted FOR an NDP budget.

He's not a Conservative, never has been, and I hope he never will be again.

He's a complacent and careless member of the establishment... unable to sense corruption and mediocrity where it so blatantly exists.

Who to blame

If the Liberals do not go down in defeat tomorrow, and it appears that they likely will not, I'm putting the blame squarely on one person.

David Kilgour sounds like he's going to vote to topple the government, while "former-Reform" MP Chuck Cadman will likely vote FOR the NDP budget amendments. This is just my gut feeling. Cadman was never a policy wonk. He was never ideologically very "conservative". I don't think he sees anything of concern in spending billions of dollars in order to buy votes over a 10 month period. It sounds like he's actually being brainwashed by Paul Martin himself (who has called and visited him) into believing that keeping the Liberals in power would be good for national unity. I want to get mad at Cadman, for being so gullible and idiotic, but he seems like a generally good guy.

Instead, I'm putting the blame on Jasbir Cheema. "Jasbir Who?" you might ask? Jasbir Cheema was the guy who immorally defeated Cadman last year in the Conservative nomination race in Surrey North by signing up dozens of instant members. It will be indirectly HIS fault that the budget went through. If that disgusting nomination race did not take place as it did, Cadman would be a Conservative MP right now and because of his caucus loyalties, he would happily vote to topple the Liberals.

Now, that isn't the case, and he's likely to create a tie in tomorrow's vote, allowing the Speaker to keep this government in power.

Disgusting.

Joe Clark vs. Belinda

Today, I saw someone compare two traitors: Belinda and Joe.

I thought I'd do a quick comparison of their similarities and differences.

Similaries:

- What appears to be a general lack of intelligence (Very clear).

- A Complete lack of charisma (Obvious).

- Horrible political instincts (Joe in 1983 vs. Belinda yesterday).

- Unwarranted ambition (Joe in 1976 vs. Belinda (even more) in 2003/4).

Differences:

- Joe was seemingly loyal to his party throughout, even when Mulroney won in 1983. He was loyal to it after that, and he was loyal enough to his longstanding opposition to the Liberals to not join their ranks when the PC Party ceased to be. Granted, he wasn't smart or practical enough to join the new Conservative Party, but he was still "principled" enough to sit as an independent.

- Belinda has absolutely no committed "core group" of believers and admirers. All of them are bought and paid for. Shockingly, Joe had about 3 or 4 people who could have been described as "Clarkites". They currently sit as "Progressive Conservative" Senators.

- Joe was a lot meaner, a lot stubborner and was probably a heckuva lot more committed to public service on a longterm basis. Once Belinda either loses in the next election or realizes that she has no hope in becoming Prime Minister EVER.... we'll probably never see her again, except for in the tabloids.

Funniest line of the day

From Calgary Grit in a round of virtual Question Period:

The honourable member from Central Nova

Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Human Resources Development Minister. Belinda...I thought we had something...how can you do this to me?

I read the headline three times...

...before I understood what it was saying.

Ruined a perfectly good day! Well, maybe not.

Today was the first time I voted in any meaningful election. (i.e. outside student council)

I walked to the polling station after I heard the news, and obviously, I was shocked.

If the Conservatives still muster Cadman and Kilgour, I think that they should go for it anyway.

I say that because, up until this point, much of the Liberal vote has been kept in through pity - "poor Paul Martin wanted to be PM his whole life". This move, although Martin himself had probably very little to do with orchestrating it, will make him look shrewd, competent and maybe even a little heartless... breaking up Ottawa's star couple and all.

And plus, it's not like Belinda has a deep and committed group of followers. What could they possibly be attracted to? Honestly? Alan over at Occam's Carbuncle summed it up best a couple of weeks ago:

A quick review of the advantages of having Belinda Stronach on the Conservative front benches:

1. fiercely loyal to the Party
1. riveting public speaker
1. passionate defender of conservative principles
1. fluent bilingualism appeals to Quebec voters
1. encyclopedic command of the issues
1. uunmatched political acumen
1. doesn't look like a redneck
2. Daddy's money alone could fund the next campaign

She was and still is devoid of all substance. She wants to be Prime Minister without any compelling reason... it's really actually quite humourous and embarrassing (for her, although it's hard not to share in the embarrassment of her total cluelessness). What a fool. She realized that one party (even if the voting rules skewed how popular sentiment perceived her) would never elect her as leader, so she's hoping that the Liberal party will. I think she really believes that and I really hope that they do make her leader!

As for Harper... no other person in the country at the beginning of 2004 could have taken the Conservatives as far as they are now. Every other leader lacked the substance and the instinct to make things happen. Sure, he hasn't done everything completely right, he's made mistakes, he's said stuff that's annoyed me... basically, he's been far from perfect. The Conservatives, like anybody else, did not have the luxury of electing a perfect leader and this was the best possible selection available at the time... and I'm still cautiously optimistic that things will turn out alright... if they stick with him.

Ed Broadbent is The Man

We're not losing anything, what we're potentially doing is failing to take advantage of a very sick MP. - Ed Broadbent

What a classy, classy thing to do.

A hardcore socialist willing to pair with one of most "redneck" Reformers (stating perceptions, not reality) in the entire Tory caucus.

PS. Has anyone else noticed how they keep referring to Darrel Stinson as an "Alberta MP"? He's actually from BC. Would they be making the same mistake between a New Brunswick and a Nova Scotia MP? Probably not. In actuality though, Stinson's style (cowboy hats and all) makes him look more like an Albertan, but that's still no excuse for sloppy journalism.

Why Canada is a better country than America

Because of stories like this:

After a mentally disabled black man was found beaten, unconscious, and shivering on a fire ant mound in 2003, four white men charged in the crime could have faced 10 years in prison.

But folks in this poor, pine-locked Texas hamlet of 2,300 say they knew better.

On Friday, the four young men accused of severely injuring 44-year-old Billy Ray Johnson during a late-night pasture party are expected to be sentenced to probation or brief jail time after juries rejected more serious charges and recommended suspended sentences for two of them.

The victim survived the attack but can't walk without help or speak clearly.

Some white residents believe it is a fair outcome for a few "good boys" from prominent families with no previous legal trouble. But other residents, blacks and whites, say the sentences are far from fair and just another example of justice being tainted by small-town politics, racism and a court system that favors whites.

That's right. It's mostly because of the racism, which is clearly and obviously not a majority characteristic in America - but it's widespread enough to make it quite challenging and troublesome for minorities to live in large portions of the United States.

Unlike a lot of confused and misguided folks who are obsessed with pinning the blame squarely on George W., I obviously don't see it that way at all.

I remember reading an article in the Weekly Standard from a couple of months ago about Americans who were immigrating to Canada... and the responses were actually kind of logical and thought-out:

He says that when satellite trucks first started showing up in his driveway, the neighbors were atwitter. He loves his neighbors, a healthy mix of Republicans and Democrats. They regularly get together for barbecues, and come see him perform in community theater....

Still, Key is leaving his homeland, and he's sick of hearing from talk-show types who say good riddance on the one hand and he should stay and fight on the other. "Shouldn't you?" I ask, picking up the latter sentiment. After all, he gets along beautifully even with his Republican neighbors, and nobody except a few journalists has questioned his patriotism. So how bad, really, is the alleged cauldron of intolerance known as America? Isn't he boxing with Sean Hannity's shadow, responding not to the America he actually knows, but to the polarized version of it that lives in his cable box?

Besides, I suggest in a windy disquisition (I've had wine with lunch) after hearing at length how he once marched for civil rights and against Vietnam, even if this ugly America is as pervasive as he says, isn't it our duty as Americans to get in on the debate, to jump into the sandbox and hit somebody on the head with a shovel while no one's looking? It's what made our country great. Our forefathers may have quit their home countries once upon a time, but they came here to build a better one.

He isn't buying. "I'm f--ing tired," he says, "and I don't need to rebuild the country. There's a perfectly good one 30 miles away."

So yeah, basically, Canada is better in some ways because of reasons that might otherwise seem annoying and frustrating - its apathy and its laid-backness (if that's even a word?).

It's easier to live here. People care less about other people's business. The security atmosphere in America (although well-intended of course) makes matters all the worse. I know I've tried to avoid admitting it in the past, but freedoms HAVE been trampled in America - although I don't believe that these infringements are (usually) a direct cause of legislation or executive decisionmaking taken by the US government. Instead, I largely blame stupid cops, stupid border people, stupid customs people and so on.

Going to America is always slightly troublesome for me. Getting across the border or across immigration/customs at the airport is usually a small hassle. Unlike in Canada, I've learnt that it's best to avoid cops in America. Basically, there's just a stronger culture of fear. There might be a stronger economy, a more moral foreign policy as expressed by the government (i.e. removing not embracing dictators), and other reasons too... but that's all useless if you're going to be living tensely and fearfully. And I'm finally starting to come around to see how important that factor really is.

Someone putting them in their place

The Chief Canadian free trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, lashing out at a Toronto Star reporter:

"Toronto Star?! That rag?? That damn thing is a very poor excuse for a newspaper... I have no respect for it or for you!.. You are a hack!"

This was back in 1987.

I thought that was pretty interesting. Imagine someone doing that today?

Polarized for different reasons

Normally, the word "polarized" has negative connotations attached to it when the word refers to politics. In actuality, a sense of polarization is a good thing. It's a symptom of disagreement, debate and passion - all good things in a functioning democracy... well usually anyway.

For this post, I'm going to revert back to my annoying tendency to compare and contrast Canadian and American politics. (By the way, normally my comparisons leave a favourable impression on the American side, but I can't stress enough that I still think that Canada is the better country overall. A better country with a lot of negative issues surrounding its government.)

Polarization usually exists for two reasons. Genuine and sincere disagreement, but also because of cheap politics; the desire to draw a distinction with your opponent, in order to advance electoral prospects (which isn't always a bad thing). Usually, and in the best case scenario, it's a healthy mix of the two reasons.

In Canada today, there is little passionate disagreement over things of substance. By this I mean, entitlement reforms (parallels with America: Social Security, Medicaid eventually), passionate debates over the makeup of the federal judiciary, and so on. Yes, in America, much of the disagreement over these debates is caused by short-term political considerations, but at least they disagree on things of SUBSTANCE.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of the whole corruption issue. I'm getting sick of all the posturing. I really don't care about it anymore. I've suspected everything I've heard already for many years now. Maybe not in this exact form, but the jist of it is so completely predictable. I can't believe anyone actually finds it surprising.

I don't want the Conservatives to win because they won't be corrupt (although that's an added bonus of course and something I would expect from them), I want them to win so they could implement evil right-wing economic policies (Hidden Agenda, version Economic, not social).

I think it would be so cool if the federal government just minded its own darn (constitutionally ordained) business. I think it'd be cool if subsidies to economically dependent regions were slashed in favour of a more economically viable policy. I think slashing (I like the word slashing) the bureaucracy would be excellent. And most of all, cutting taxes would be good too.

I want the Conservatives in power for all of those reasons (even though I suspect that they would have a hard time implementing any positive policies properly), not because they angrily (and sometimes unnecessarily) attack the Liberals every day for being crooks.

It would be nice to have Canadian politics polarized over things of substance. Nice, but probably not likely.

In the real world, Canadians might just be too inherently socialistic to vote Conservative unless it involves throwing out a bunch of (seemingly) corrupt politicians.

PS. I use the word seemingly because I don't actually believe that Paul Martin is corrupt. Incompetent, sure, but corrupt - I highly doubt it, and I highly doubt that any of his ministers are that corrupt either. Paul Martin was a multi-multi-millionaire upon joining politics - why would he even NEED to be a crook? The Chretien government though.... that's another story. Watching Paul Martin give an election-night concession speech would bring me no joy. If Jean Chretien would do the same... that's another story too. Too late for that though.

1 Year Since

It's been one year since the Sikh Community in the Greater Vancouver Area (and in reality, North America at large) lost its most powerful preacher and Sikh Youth role model.

It's been one year since the biggest funeral in British Columbia history.

Parminder Singh of Surrey, B.C. passed away one year ago this week. Along with him, two others passed away as well; Rena Kaur and Charnjit Singh. (From everything I've heard, Rena Kaur and Charnjit Singh led amazing lives as well, but I don't know enough about them to really say much. Charnjit Singh was one of the most amazing Gatka (Sikh martial arts) players and teachers in the entire world and Rena Kaur was one of the most promising and well-rounded Sikh girls that I had ever encountered, and I especially came to know that just a couple of days before her death.)

I don't know what to say really, especially since much has been said already, but I'd like to share a few thoughts nonetheless.

I really admired Parminder Singh. Within one year, (May 2003 to May 2004) he somehow established himself (I still don't know how he did it) as the most sought after Sikh Youth speaker in North America.

Not only that, but his appeal extended so much further. A few weeks before his death, his name was added to the list of approved religious preachers that were allowed to visit my father with little to no restrictions. And this was a guy, who just a year earlier, was largely unknown!

The first time I heard him speak was in October 2003, at an inter-faith religions conference. He spoke last, and by all accounts, he blew everyone away. Normally, I never gave many speakers the chance to impress me. I'm usually too skeptical; maybe even too egotistical to believe that they'd be able to awe me.

When he spoke, I thankfully let my guard down, and like everyone else, I was blown away.

I asked him to speak just a couple months later at our annual Sikh Students Association conference at UBC, and once again, he did not disappoint. So certain was I in his abilities, that I convinced the other conference organizers to make sure he was given more time than the rest of the speakers.

I have to confess something though... something that many are probably aware of. While recognizing that Parminder Singh was an amazing preacher, a couple of times, I regrettably expressed concerns with a few of the consequences of his increasing popularity and stature. In hindsight, it is so easy to recognize how petty these considerations were, and I just wish that I was more mature not to feel the way I did.

In March of 2004, we (the UBC SSA) once again invited him to speak at a small Keertan Divaan that we were holding before the exam period. Turnout was a complete disaster. We somehow got Parminder Singh to agree to speak that very day (if we got him to agree to speak before that, turnout would have been a fair bit higher), and even though there was such a small audience, I'd never heard him give such an amazing lecture. For weeks after that, I was on a high. It might not all have been because of his speech, but it was certainly a factor.

I remember re-thinking my previous concerns at that time, and wishing that he would be able to execute all the plans that he had and that he would be able to spread his message far and wide, because I really began to develop a strong faith in him and the potential that he had... and this was only a month before he passed away.

I remember seeing him at the Nagar Keertans in April 2004 (Davinder Singh, Me and Parminder Singh), and he never acted how one would expect. He spent so much of his time, separated from the dozens of Sikh Youth who idolized him, and instead, he spent so much time going through the crowds in an effort to hand out brochures for the Guru Nanak Academy. His life was absolutely and completely dedicated to helping others. No other considerations really seemed to effect him much. Not work, not money and certainly nothing other than Sikhi Parchaar during his spare time.

He didn't become "big" due to his own ambition, he became "big" due to his incredible abilities, his persuasive powers and his strong, principled character, and that's the way it should be done more often.

I remember the day the car accident took place. Horrible, horrible day. I was at work when my brother told me that a huge accident had just taken place and that a number of the people from "the academy" were seriously injured and that Charnjit Singh had passed away. After about 30 minutes of shock and gathering more information, I quickly called as many people as I could. I couldn't sit, I felt sick.

After the information started to become clearer (thread on a Sikh Youth message board that night), it became obvious (though not at that time) that Parminder Singh and Rena Kaur were on their way out of this world. I didn't sleep that night. I stayed awake in my apartment, sitting on Yahoo! Messenger, doing Paath (Sikh prayers) with a bunch of other Sikh youths throughout the night. None of us could sleep. Every one of us began to realize the scope and depth of the tragedy that was just taking place. At the time, every one of us innocently held out some hope that maybe, just maybe, Rena Kaur and Parminder Singh could show SOME brain activity, and that someone would simply tell us that information at any time, but that never happened. I couldn't sleep at all. That morning at around 3am I drove all the way to Surrey in the most horrible weather I had ever driven in, in order to attend the beginning of the Akhand Paath. I went, I listened, I drove back, heard the horrible news from those who were still awake, (at 7am in the morning) and then I finally fell asleep, knowing that while this would invigorate and bring together many people in the short term, what had just happened would be an immense tragedy in the long term, both for the families of the victims, but also for the community at large.

And while it's not like the community has fallen apart, it no doubt has been an extraordinary tragedy....




(I really like this picture.)

Interesting content

Being as idle and unoccupied as I am, I sometimes watch old news footage online.

CBC Archives (which goes back seemingly forever) and the main CTV News site (since 2003) are both good resources for old Canadian news... I learn new stuff every time I do a quick search for an old news clip.

For example, if you look at the story on the Liberal Leadership Convention of 1984, you see something really interesting. During Jean Chretien's address to the convention, Paul Martin (our current PM and bitter Chretien rival) is standing right behind Chretien and is smiling as Chretien speaks. This is when Paul Martin was still CEO of Canadian steamship lines and 4 years before he was even elected as a Liberal MP. Weird eh? Almost as weird as the Gagliano clip. Can't this guy keep any of his friends? All his friends appear to be a bunch of relatively young and inexperienced amateurs who seem to have no idea what they're doing. Chretien's inner circle might've been corrupt, but at least they seemed sort of competent and in control.

There's lots of other interesting tidbits that are fascinating as well. Do a quick search... particularly on the CBC archives site, and you'll learn quite a bit.

PS. Chretien is infinitely more likeable in the pre-1993 clips than he is in the post-1993 links. Odd.

Great Idea

Andrew Coyne observes in response to the Liberal threat to stay in power after potentially suffering a vote from parliament that calls on them to resign:

So not only will the government decide when or if it will face the judgment of Parliament, it will also reserve to itself the right to interpret what that judgment means. And yet another parliamentary convention crumbles into dust. I cannot think of another Westminster system in which this would be permitted: a government that has clearly lost the confidence of the House refusing to leave office, or even to face Parliament......

After all, it's "only a convention" that governments resign if they lose a budget vote. It's "only a convention" that the Governor General decides who to call upon to form a ministry. And so on. Ultimately, the system depends upon people behaving decently, with due deference to convention and precedent.What's it going to take: Thousands of people descending on Parliament Hill wearing orange scarves?

Instead, if the Liberals lose a clear non-confidence motion and continue to govern, how about the Conservative and Bloc MPs simply boycott parliament? Wouldn't that be something? If they just refused to come into the House of Commons. It would seem like a complete and total national crisis. Unless Paul Martin is really that shameless, an election would HAVE to be called. I think it'd be absolutely great, simply from an entertainment perspective. It would automatically engage MILLIONS of apathetic Canadians and bring them to educate themselves at least a little bit about Canadian politics, and most of them would have to bring themselves to be shocked and outraged at a government unwilling to call an election even when convention and constitutional principles call upon them to do so.

I think it'd be great. What an awesome way to usher in a new government. Boycotting the initial government in a fit of righteous outrage because of how they ignored common sense democratic principles and THEN forcing an election to happen, and then (in order for this story to end how it's supposed to end) sweep to power!

Immigration as a political issue

I don't follow politics in the UK very much at all, but from the little I've seen and heard, the leader of the UK Conservatives appears to be manipulating the public's fear of "uncontrolled" immigration. I say manipulating because I could say from common sense that he's not playing to policy wonks who doubt the social and economic benefits of "uncontrolled" immigration - but to feelings of nationalism... that many Brits still feel after they lost such a vast and powerful empire. That's the practical effect at least.

Now of course, it would be silly to say that bringing up issues in relation to immigration is racist. That simply isn't the case, however, it still makes me a bit nervous when some politicians talk about immigration in general, in a negative context, even though that isn't usually their intention. In a perfect world, bringing up the issue would give me no worries at all, but in practice, it appears as if it's often brought up only in order to spread fear. For example, I felt a bit uneasy when George W. Bush introduced the gay marriage constitutional ammendment last year, because it seemed as if he was doing so, in part, to manipulate fears. Again, he might've done so with good intentions as well, but the fact that it was also filled with added political motives to manipulate fears against gay marriage and (for some) gays in general annoyed me.

Most immigrants who come to Canada, don't feel as if they've arrived here easily. They appreciate the fact that they're here, and most of them struggled to get here. I believe that same feeling is present amongst the United Kingdom's immigrant community. Immigration does not play a part in the collective memory of countries such as France, but countries in the Anglosphere generally tend to have such a tradition where their nation is seen by citizens as a refuge for others.

I hate to complain when an issue of public policy is used for "political purposes" since that would seem to be a pretty strange complaint... but when the issue of immigration is used disingenuously to exploit fears instead of rational/well-meaning concerns, then I'm incapable of supporting such a party who will do such a thing... not because of what they're saying exactly, but because of the indirect, but still intended effect of their words.

I don't know EXACTLY how a political party would raise concerns regarding immigration in a manner in which I would find okay, so that's really the problem... Is there a way to bring up the issue without making immigrants and second-generation Canadians, particularly visible minorities, feel uncomfortable?

I guess it would have to be done in a way that stresses the contributions of immigrants in general vs. the "exception" of some immigrants who don't fit into the rule of positive contributions.

Even then, that isn't really necessary at the moment, I don't believe in Canada at least, and even in the UK. Economic growth rates are seemingly at the highest levels in both countries since the 1960s or 1970s. So surely, immigrants can't be scapegoated for economic miseries?

If any of you have watched Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN, you have witnessed a man who manipulates fear against all kinds of immigration (legal, but mostly illegal) every single day, while neglecting all their accomplishments in the face of an economic turnaround and steady economic growth. Even though his main stress is on illegals, I just find it uncomfortable to watch.... just because of the sentiment he's playing to....