CANADA FREE PRESS: Multiculturalists can be likened to the hypocritical dilettantes who visit Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, gush over the Amish lifestyle and then return home to their cell phones and hummers.
The Amish are quaint if they can be safely confined to a theme park. But what if they were to multiply a million fold to burst across the land and lever legislatures to impose their ways? One might recall the ordeal of the citizens of Antelope, Oregon in the 1980s when 7,000 cult followers of the “Baghwan”, the Rajneeshees, invaded Wasco County and took over the town council to raise havoc.
In the Vancouver I knew, people of British origin made up 65% of the population, while just 5% were classified as Asian. I recall that those of us who were “British” were rather proud of the 35% who were not. We thought that they added “spice” to our lives, and especially to our cuisine. We were, in the 1960s, proto-typical “multiculturalists” before the word was coined. And like the Amish, that 35% was considerate enough, for the most part, to stay out of our neighbourhoods and live in designated parts of town. “Multiculturalism” was envisaged really as just a spectator sport. Drop in and visit somebody exotic, then go home where it is safe and comfortable.
But suddenly, following the policy movement in 1966 toward immigration from “non-traditional” sources, and the looming loss of Hong Kong to the Chinese Communists, Vancouver saw a demographic shift of dramatic proportions. In little over two decades the British share of the city’s population fell from 65% to 25% while the Asian share skyrocketed from 5% to 25%. An ugly nickname emerged for the town: “Hongcouver”. The mayor preferred the politically correct euphemism: “A world within a city.” Now 38% of city residents are foreign-born, second only to Toronto at 44%.
It is one thing to add “spice” to your plate. It is another to dump the whole two kilogram bag of pepper on it. As superficial and innocuous as multiculturalism initially appeared to be, it set in motion forces that will be difficult to control. Once the number of foreign-born reaches a critical mass, concessions to them no longer are a matter of generosity and tolerance but necessity. The more Muslims that populate a Western nation, for example, the more difficult it will be to say no to them in questions that matter.
When the Swedes opened up their homogeneous Nordic society to mass immigration from outside Scandinavia, some decades ago, they also let the multicultural genie out of the bottle. Now 17% of the Swedish population have an immigrant background and over half of immigrants come from beyond Europe. This seemingly marginal percentage gave them the leverage to persuade the Swedish government to dis-establish the Lutheran Church, even though 78% follow that denomination. The ethnic tail does not have to be very long to wag the majoritarian dog.
Immigration can accelerate growth at a pace beyond the ability of the host culture to fully comprehend it or react to it in time. In just twenty years the Muslim population in Canada more than doubled to 600,000 in 2001. In the ten years preceding that date, it leapt by 129% so that the number of Muslims surpassed the number of Jews in the country. By 2017 they are projected to reach nearly a million and half in number. What happens when they begin to throw their weight around? What is happening now?
The Iranian Muslims of North Vancouver some years ago were bold enough to ask North Vancouver council to require the local swimming pool to change its dress code to ban bikinis. In another ten years, with another 10,000 Muslims in the district, will council have the will to resist their petition? Why weren’t they willing or able to revoke the taxi-cab licence of the company whose Muslim driver refused a ride to blind man because his guide dog, was, according to the Koran, “unclean”. Multiculturalism is no longer a spectator sport >>> By Tim Murray
Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)
