It May Not Be Love But Love Those Canadians!

It May Not Be Love But Love Those Canadians!

"One of lawyer Julie Taub's clients recently narrowly escaped being duped into marrying a foreign woman so she could gain permanent residency. Taub arranges a lot of marriage sponsorships and she's gotten good at sniffing out the fraudsters over the years. A red flag went up when she began the preparatory work for a Canadian man who fell in love with a woman from Madagascar and wanted to sponsor her. 'I took one look at her and saw her attitude (of entitlement),' recalls Taub, an Ottawa immigration and refugee lawyer. She later e-mailed the man and warned him to check out his prospective spouse more closely because she might be taking him for a ride. He subsequently withdrew his sponsorship application. She'd been having an affair with one of his colleagues. Taub estimates that for every five sponsorships she arranges, one ends up victimizing a Canadian. 'These people who get status in Canada through fraud ... can sponsor their own family members,' she explains. 'So you get chain migration based on an original fraud.' Canada should adopt the system in the U.S. and Australia, where foreign nationals in spousal sponsorship cases are given temporary resident status for at least two years, says Taub. That status is renewable at the end of the first year if the marriage is still intact. If the couple is still together after two years, the sponsored spouse can apply for permanent resident status. 'That's the kind of reform we need. It's just common sense,' says Taub. 'Giving them permanent resident status immediately on landing just encourages these bad-faith marriages.' [Seriously, who writes Canadian immigration law? Pollyanna's younger sister?]

 

The federal government doesn't formally track marriages of convenience. Immigration Canada's overseas offices receive between 30,000 and 40,000 spousal sponsorships annually. About 18% are refused and officials suspect that most of them are marriages of convenience. (This summer, Immigration Canada plans to implement a new case management system to better track this data.) The Canada Border Services Agency has only eight officers to investigate bad faith marriages, points out Taub. And those officers are also expected to investigate security threats. So, immigration-related marriage fraud isn't exactly a priority, she says. 'Why do you think (foreign nationals) target Canadians in all the Caribbean islands and China and everywhere you go? Because it's so easy to get status through marriage,' she says. [Aww, we thought it was because we're so good looking.] She manages to talk 10% to 15% of her clients out of proceeding with sponsorships. Under proposed amendments, the federal government plans to tweak the rules slightly to try to prevent marriages of convenience. Currently, a bad faith relationship must meet two criteria -- that it isn't genuine and that it was primarily entered into to obtain immigration status. Under the proposed changes, officials would only have to show one of the elements. But Vancouver immigration lawyer Gordon Maynard says the existing system works fine. 'You don't want to say no in the wrong cases.' People can be stripped of their permanent residency status and deported if it's proven they defrauded the system, says Maynard. Retorts Taub: 'Do you know how difficult that is? It's practically never happened because once you're a permanent resident, you have rights.' Welcome to Canada, folks." (Edmonton Sun, April 14, 2010)

 

[This article appears in the May, 2010 issue of the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE. Published monthly, the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE is available by subscription for $30 per year. You can subscribe by sending a cheque or VISA number and expiry date to CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.]

Political Correctness and Multicult Have Failed, Says Dosanjh

 

 

Political Correctness and Multicult Have Failed, Says Dosanjh

 

As far back as 1991, you’re doing here is right.’ We should stop being politically correct and have a debate.'” (Globe and Mail, April 21, 2010) But a "debate" is precisely what political correctness and multicultualism have prevented us from having. To question policies that will reduce the European founding/settler people to minority status by 2050 is to invite being hissed into silence or charged by some human rights commission. I warned that multiculturalism would cost Canadians key freedoms including freedom of speech. My then employer the Peel Board of Education, listed this comment as one of my sins and a statement that was not to be repeated. I believe it even more firmly today. It is obvious and I was right. Multiculturalism is a form of mental AIDS. Like those with AIDS, its followers have lost the ability to protect our rights from minority threats, fixated, as they are, by the notion that all cultures are equal. It makes the illogical leap and proclaims that all cultures are equal. [They're not. Third World immigrants acknowledge as much when they leave failed lands with their failed cultures to come to Canada.] Then, multiculturalism says newcomers should be allowed, nay encouraged, to keep and practise their failed cultures. Hence, we have turbans in the police, kirpans in the schools and burqas and niqabs in abudance. If you object, you are wrong: who are you to criticize someone else's culture? Thus, in the face of the most absurd or dangerous practices our political establishment is crippled by its own ideological nonsense. Sikhs are prone to violent intracommunal squabbles. These have frequently degenerated into brawls at gurdwaras  (temples), with kirpans (which dullard Canadians were assured were 'ceremonial’ daggers) flashing merrily and hacking up opponents.. Sometimes the violence has escalated to murder. Tara Singh Hayer, a moderate Sikh publisher who opposed radical and violent Sikh supporters of Khalistan (the same crew that blew up two planes originating from Canadian soil in 1985) was shot and maimed and, then, some years later murdered.

 

The April 18 Vaisakhi Parade (an annual Sikh festival and must for ambitious politicians) posed a problem in Surrey, BC,.this year. This year a float celebrating Sikh terrorists and who are so labelled by the Canadian government caused much consternation. B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and federal Liberal Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff refused to attend the parade: "Concerns about the appearance of the controversial float came after B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and ... Michael Ignatieff had already issued statements calling for prade organizeres to apologixze for aparently threatining comments. Last week, Inderjit Singh Bains, a parade organizer, said on a Punjabi radio station that Libersl MP Ujjal Dosanjh and BC MLA Dave Hayer (the slain publisher's son) weren't welcome at the even and, if they showed up, they would be responsible for their own safety. Both Mr. Dosanjh and Mr Hayer have been critical of those who support violence to create a separate Sikh homeland." (Globe and Mail, April 19, 2010)

 

Former NDPer and B.C. Premier now resurrected as a Liberal cabinet minister and now opposition critic, Sikh Ujjal Dosanjh now has serious doubts about multiculturalism and political correctness. "Ujjal Dosanjh, .. , says Sikh extremism is on the rise in some parts of the country, and blamed, in part, 'politically correct' Canadians who let it happen in the name of diversity.  Mr. Dosanjh, who was savagely beaten in Vancouver in 1985 after speaking out against religious violence, said Canadian multiculturalism has allowed extremism to take root in Sikh and other ethnic communities. Mr. Dosanjh’s comments shocked some Sikh organizations, including the influential World Sikh Organization of Canada.  Meanwhile, Mr. Dosanjh blamed what he described as Canada’s polite brand of multiculturalism for giving extremists the space to nurture old grudges brought from their homelands. At the same time, Canada has failed to instill its own values on new immigrants. 'I think what we are doing to this country is that this idea of multiculturalism has been completely distorted, turned on its head to essentially claim that anything anyone believes – no matter how ridiculous and outrageous it might be – is okay and acceptable in the name of diversity. Where we have gone wrong in this pursuit of multiculturalism is that there is no adherence to core values, the core Canadian values, which [are]: That you don’t threaten people who differ with you; you don’t go attack them personally; you don’t terrorize the populace. ..I think Canadians need to engage in this cultural diversity debate,” he said. “And we actually have to say to each other: ‘Hey what you’re doing is wrong.  What you’re doing here is right.’ We should stop being politically correct and have a debate.” (Globe and Mail, April 14, 2010)

 

Great idea, but political correctness and multicult have stifled any critical debate about the "diverse" and bad behaviour of newcomers or even of whether it's a good idea to replace the founding/settler European population with "diverse" conflicting and contradictory cultures. – Paul Fromm

 

Love The Honorific

 

CRIME WATCH

 

Love The Honorific

"A scammer has been jailed and faces deportation to Nigeria for using the identities of three dead Calgarians to apply for credit cards and defraud banks. ... The fraud unravelled when the manager of the condominium complex on 17th Street S.W. where [the fraudster] lived reported there had been a lot of mailbox break-ins. She suspected him because he had recently asked her for a list of vacant units as well as other vacant homes managed by her company. ... Prince Olufemi Oshodi, 35, made matters worse during his trial by presenting forged letters from Nigeria meant to garner sympathy and perhaps a more lenient sentence. On Thursday, provincial court Judge Anne Brown gave him two years less a day after accepting a joint sentencing proposal by Crown prosecutor Brian Kiers and defence lawyer Alain Hepner. 'Oshodi's actions caused emotional and other difficulties for the grieving widows of the deceased men,' Kiers told the judge.

 

Oshodi previously pleaded guilty to the three counts of personation to gain credit, then admitted Thursday to four counts of forging documents that he had created in hopes of reducing his sentence. The judge said it was bad enough that Oshodi used the names of recently deceased people for financial gain, but he made it worse by lying to the court. The forged letters indicated his three step-daughters were being expelled from college for non-payment of fees. " (Calgary Herald, April 23, 2010) Good grief. It really is some kind of national compulsion.

 

[This article appears in the May, 2010 issue of the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE. Published monthly, the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE is available by subscription for $30 per year. You can subscribe by sending a cheque or VISA number and expiry date to CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.]

 

 

Nana Yaw -- Another Criminal Immgrant

 

CRIME WATCH

Nana Yaw -- Another Criminal Immgrant

 

In Ghana, various tribes appropriate the term Nana, meaning king or leader or elder, attaching it to every male's name as a prefix. Heaven knows what Yaw means in Ghana, but in nautical terms it means to swerve off course. On April 22, a 30-year-old Ghanian import to Toronto named "Nana Yaw admitted to stabbing his girlfriend, violating her body, and finishing off her 14-year-old brother in a particularly brutal fashion over Christmas 2007 while their 16-year-old brother, held for two days, was forced to watch. ... Iliada (Lois) Zois, 22, had been living with Yaw for a year but, fed up with his jealousy, possessiveness and physical abuse, was secretly planning to leave, according to an agreed statement of facts read by Crown attorney Sarah Welch. On Christmas Eve 2007, increasingly fearful of her boyfriend, she had her brothers Jamie, 14, and Thomas, 16, sleep over at her Kipling Ave. apartment in the mistaken belief their presence would keep her safe.

 

On Christmas morning, the brothers heard the bathroom mirror smashing as Yaw argued with Zois and struggled to take away her cellphone to view its contents. He smashed the phone on the ground and pointed a corkscrew at her. 'No, Nana, stop. Please help, he is trying to kill us,' Zois said. Yaw grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed her continuously as she crawled toward the door on her knees, killing her quickly. Jamie tried to leave the apartment to get help, but Yaw stabbed him as well. A wound to the neck allowed air to escape and blood to enter his lungs. He was seriously injured but alive. Yaw then stabbed Thomas in the forearm and chest and chased him around the apartment as the teen pleaded for his life. Yaw relented. [Perhaps he was tired]

 

Over the next hours Yaw began drinking heavily. Jamie kept wheezing loudly from his neck wound. 'Shut the f--- up,' Yaw said and stomped on his head, killing him almost instantly. ... Shortly after, Yaw ordered Thomas to watch him engage in sexual intercourse with his dead girlfriend. 'This is how much I love your sister,' he said. Over the next day Yaw planned to conceal the bodies and [surprise] leave Canada. He packed a number of bags and, taking Thomas with him, delivered them to his cousin's house. Before leaving on Boxing Day, he put the teen in a bedroom closet, tying him to a chair and gagging his mouth.

 

Thomas eventually freed himself and went to check on his siblings, to see if they might be alive but found them dead. Traumatized and afraid, he returned to the cupboard for two hours before summoning the courage to walk to 23 Division police station. On Dec. 27, Yaw took a bus to Windsor, but changed his mind and returned to Toronto, turning himself in to police. ... As Thomas and family members looked on Thursday, Yaw pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder and one of aggravated assault, earning him an automatic life sentence. Acting on a joint Crown-defence recommendation, the judge set a stiff 20 years before Yaw can apply for parole. ... In his victim-impact statement, Thomas said ... 'I want him to stay in jail forever until he dies. I hate him.'" (Toronto Star, April 22, 2010)

 

It is hard enough for people to build lives with someone from a similar background; for the poor fool contemplating a relationship with someone from a completely alien culture, it requires a total suspension of normal expectations. Transplant people from the most violently horrific places on earth, plunk them down in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal and the wonder is that bloodbaths are relatively rare.

 

[This article appears in the May, 2010 issue of the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE. Published monthly, the CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE is available by subscription for $30 per year. You can subscribe by sending a cheque or VISA number and expiry date to CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.]

Gov't Funded Negro Advocacy Group Seeks to Intervene for Censorship in Lemire Internet Case

 

Gov't Funded Negro Advocacy Group Seeks to Intervene for Censorship in Lemire Internet Case

 

The problem with government funding private minority interest groups is that it skews the political process. No govenment funds groups to lobby for or advocate for the rights of the dispossessed European Majority in Canada, but every since a Trudeau brought us the curse of multiculturalism, minority groups have been lavishly funded. They haver a big voice, the groups advocating for the interests of the Majority must be funded, if at all, from after tax earnings.

 

Suddenly, on May 13, late, late in the game an organization called the African-Canadian Legal Clinic sought intervenor status in the Marc Lemire Internet case soon going to Federal Court for judicial review. In 2003, chronic complaint filer Richard Warman had filed a Sec. 13 "Internet censorship" complaint against Marc Lemire and his Freedomsite. After six years of costly litigstin, Marc Lemire became the first victim ever to win a Sec. 13 case. Tribunal Member Athanasios Hadjis three out Warman's complaint a declared Sec. 13 unconstitutional and a violation of the free speech protections of the Charter. The Canadian Human Rights Commission in October, sought "judicial" review (appealed).

 

Supporters for and against censorship are lining up to intervene. Along at the last minute comes the African Canadian Legal Clinic. 

 

According to its website, "The African Canadian Legal Clinic (ACLC) is a not-for-profit organization established in October 1994 expressly to address anti-Black racism and other forms of systemic and institutional discrimination in Canadian society. As a specialty clinic funded by Legal Aid Ontario, the ACLC provides advice and represents African Canadians in all legal forums, particularly in the courts through race-based test cases that are likely to result in significant legal precedents." That's jolly: the taxpayers funds, apparently in its entirety, a legal lobby group to advocate for Backs. [If any such legal group were formed to advocate for the rights of European Canadians, yes, you have it, it would be denounced as "racist." Oh, yes, and to feast off taxpayers' money, not a chance!]

 

In fiscal 2008, out of a total revenue of $1,847,606 all but a paltry $7,489 seems to have come from one government department or another. Full partricipation is on a race-based (is that "racist" basis): The website explains:

 

·  General Membership (with full voting privileges) - open to any African Canadian, 18 or older, normally resident in Ontario

·  Supporting Membership (no voting privileges) - open to any non-African Canadian, 18 or older, normally resident in Ontario

 

They are represented by Ed Mogan, former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress. It's a funny old world, the Canadian Jewish Congress, Canada's most strident lobby for speech control, just happens to be an intervenor in the Lemire case.

 

The National Post (May 16, 2010) reports: .The upcoming appeal of Section 13, Canada's online hate speech law, 'pits one set of rights -- human rights -- against another set of rights -- charter-guaranteed rights,' according to a request for intervenor status by the African Canadian Legal Clinic. The hate speech case against webmaster Marc Lemire, brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission by activist lawyer Richard Warman, is to be reviewed in Federal Court, after a tribunal last year decided that Mr. Lemire did violate Section 13, but that the law itself is an unconstitutional limit on free speech.

 

The Federal Court's decision 'will seriously impact the ability of African Canadians to seek recourse for this type of offensive and damaging yet non-violent speech. Because of the potential for a far-reaching, negative impact on the African Canadian community, the ACLC ought to be present at the judicial review to protect the community's interests.'

The Toronto-based ACLC is a new combatant on the Section 13 battlefield, as the affidavit mentions.

 

'While the ACLC does not have significant jurisprudential experience in the area of hate speech, the ACLC submits that it has established itself as an authority in the area of anti-black hate,' it reads.

The ACLC fears its interests will be 'overshadowed by the politics associated with the commission's argument. 'In light of this politicized backdrop, the commission's stance on Section 13 is likely coloured by its need to justify its decisions and its existence to critics," the affidavit reads. 'Unlike the commission, whose actions may be influenced by the political climate of the time, the ACLC's position is based purely on the best interests of the African Canadian community.' ...

 

The ACLC's position is that Section 13 be preserved, "albeit with some substantive and procedural modifications."

Mr. Warman said he will consent to the ACLC application. Mr. Lemire said he would oppose, calling the affidavit "long on self-promotion, short on any substance."

 

Marc Lemire comments:

 

Here are the full comments I gave to Joe Brean (National Post Reporter)
 
Mr. Brean.
 
The ACLC's submissions are long on self-promotion, short on any substance.  They provided no new arguments on the constitutionality of Section 13 at all, but rather make bizarre submissions about wanting “substantive and procedural modifications” to Section 13. [Para 37] They also are asking to make “recommendations on how the provision [Section 13] should be modified to align with the remedial focus of the Canadian Human Rights Act.”  [Para 38 of ACLC submissions] 
 
This is a judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, not a parliamentary committee.  The Federal Court does not have the ability to tweak or make “substantive and procedural modifications” to the existing legislation.  The Court is being asked to make a decision on if the provision – as it is currently written – is constitutional or not.  Courts can not re-write legislation to make busy body tax-payer funded race hustlers happy.
 
The ACLC’s submissions look more like a press release than legal submissions.  They do not offer any arguments on the actual constitutionality of Section 13, but rather just keep repeating – without any evidentiary basis - how Section 13 is needed, and asserting that  striking the law down would have a “serious impact” on “African Canadians”.
 
Since 1977 the ACLC has never used Section 13 even ONCE, which makes a mockery of their claims that “a decision of this Court on the issues in this case will have a serious impact on the African Canadian community…” [Para 12] and “will seriously impact the ability of African Canadians to seek recourse...” [Para 31]
 
Not a single “African Canadian” has EVER used Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in over 34 years.  It is beyond belief for this 100% tax-payer funded organization to claim that Section 13 is needed for the “African Canadian” community.
 
Section 13 is pure censorship, and the Federal Court striking this horrible law down as unconstitutional will not harm the prosperous African Canadian community in Canada one bit.  Unlike other ethnic/religious groups who constantly run to the state to fight their battles, African Canadians have demonstrated they can handle the marketplace of ideas perfectly fine. 
 
African Canadians do not – and have not in the 34 years of this law – ever relied on the censorship of Section 13. This shows that tax-payer funded grievance hustlers like the ACLC do not even understand the community they purport to represent.
 
I plan to oppose the African Canadian Legal Clinic’s attempt at intervention.  They bring nothing of substance to the court challenge.
 
And lastly, I find it quite surprising that one-time Section 13 critic – Ed Morgan is representing the ACLC.  He is the former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a rabidly pro-censorship organization which has already been granted intervener status in this case.
 
Thanks,
-Marc Lemire
 
PS:  There was one Black person who used Section 13 back in 1988 against Terry Long (in the days it applied to telephone answering machine messages.).   But he never identifies himself as an “African Canadian” nor even filed a Section 13 complaint about blacks being discriminated against.  (He complained about “Vietnamese, Tamils, Sikhs”).  Nealy complained about messages on an answering machine. There were 5 complaints in total for this case.  Nealy, and 4 others, three were identified in the complaint as “employees or members of B’nai Brith, Canada” and the fourth as a “Jew”.  The Jewish interveners totally carried the case.  Nealy was not even represented by a lawyer, while the other three had David Matas, a long-time lawyer for B'nai Brith as their counsel.

CANNIBAL MAN -- AN UPDATE

 

              CANNIBAL MAN -- AN UPDATE

 

We are approaching the second anniversary of the most barbarous chapter in modern Canadian history.
 
On July 30, 2008, Tim McLean was going home, dozing as a Greyhound bus sped him across the prairie.  Without provocation, seat mate Vince Weiguang Li suddenly attacked the young man.  The Chinese immigrant/Canadian citizen stabbed, beheaded -- and while RCMP milled around outside -- carved and ingested parts of his victim.  
 
Found not criminally responsible for his actions, Li enjoys intermittent reviews to determine when he shall again be a free man.  Now, psychiatrist Steven Kremer says it would be good for Li to spend up to 2 hours a day strolling in the (unfenced) grounds of the facility housing him.  This idyll would demand two minders at all times as Li continues to suffer from low intensity hallucinations despite two years of psychiatric treatment and anti-psychotic medication.  His doctor admits that "We cannot predict an individual's future behaviour 100%."  If so, the man eater must never again see the light of day. 
 
In another case, a month before Li butchered Tim McLean, an Iranian landed immigrant named Samad Dabiri repeatedly stabbed a woman as she waited at a streetcar stop in Toronto.  Dabiri was well known to Toronto police for "committing the same kind of crime not once but twice before in the past.  And every time he's been let back out.  [Dabiri] has severe mental problems and was charged in a similar attack back in 2003, when an elderly man suffered knife wounds to the stomach at the Dufferin Mall.  Another incident traces back to 1999, when Dabiri was collared for threatening and a weapons charge.  Why was he back out in public?  A frustrated Det. Darren Laing claims the man's mental state has kept him out of jail several times.  'That charge in 2003, he was found guilty of committing the act,' he reveals.  'However, he was found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder."  (City TV,May 21, 2008) 
 
Where have we heard that before? 
Another question -- never asked -- is whether Li should be our project at all?  He entered under the skilled worker category as a computer technician.  His work history in Canada includes mop swinger, burger flipper and newspaper boy.  Did Li buy his credentials?  For that matter, did he buy his medical documentation?  Rather than waste resources on court dates to ensure that Mr. Li basks in sunshine, providing him twin bodyguards or bigger butterfly nets, it might be more constructive to determine how psychotics like Li or Dabiri managed to get in and avoid any repetition.  If Ottawa can live with stripping elderly middle Europeans of their citizenship because they may have lied in the wake of a world shattering war 60 years ago, surely we can reexamine the case of "our" cannibal.