Always worth reading the Conservative take on immigration policy even when overly partisan and exaggerated in places. Some of her critiques have some merit but are weakened by being overstated. And to ignore broader trends on belonging and pinning everything on the Trudeau government is shallow at best:
…For example, on immigration, the Trudeau Liberals narrowed the age range for mandatory language and knowledge requirements in citizenship applications from 14-64 to 18-54, thus diminishing shared language’s role in Canadian identity for newcomers. They eliminated the in-person citizenship oath requirement. They sought to erase references to practices like female genital mutilation as abhorrent in the citizenship study guide, and in so doing, arguably normalized their importation into Canada. They turned a blind eye to judicial rulings allowing immigration status to factor into sentencing violent criminals, valuing the process of entry into the country over the responsibility associated with citizenship. They allowed Canada’s compassionate asylum system to be abused into a mockery.
The Trudeau Liberals also normalized the practice of the importation of conflicts from newcomer’s countries of origin, rather than primarily encouraging the shedding of these quarrels in favour of a pluralistic, unified Canadian identity rooted in Western democratic values. This phenomenon is best exemplified via the Trudeau government’s tolerance of diasporic lobby groups’ influence in elections and Canadian institutions, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to groups who sought to plant international conflicts and even terrorist principles in Canadian soil. And despite clear evidence of rising foreign interference in elections, the Liberals have yet to implement a foreign agent registry.
The Trudeau Liberals also prioritized cultural and ethnic differences over a shared ethos of equality in hiring and storytelling. For example, they embedded divisive, quasi-racist hiring policies into federal funding for educational institutions. They allowed Canada’s publicly funded national broadcaster to consider abandoning objectivity for racialized narratives, and now allocate news funding based on whether or not outlets sufficiently highlight ethnic, religious, and other group differences.
And rather than enlisting newcomers to help strengthen a cohesive Canadian national identity, such as by constructively addressing the nation’s historic injustices while simultaneously celebrating its positive achievements, the Trudeau Liberals actively erased symbols of shared historic Canadian identity from public view. They redesigned the Canadian passport to replace images of Canadian national heroes like Terry Fox with inert objects like a wheelbarrow. They supported activities that established the Canadian flag as a symbol of shame as opposed to a representation of patriotism. They worked to erase Canada’s founders from places of prominence.
Thus, Canada’s political left has profoundly succeeded in transforming Canada into a post-national no-nation, free from the trappings of a cohesive national identity.
For those who might argue that this is a good thing, they are very wrong.
What Justin Trudeau overlooked in his Liberal government’s zealous pursuit of post-nationalism is that his father’s multicultural vision could only thrive under robust Western democratic institutions. Without a government prioritizing above all else, especially over partisan ideology, the safeguarding of principles like freedom of speech, secularism, and equality of opportunity, multiculturalism will inevitably destroy a peaceful, democratic pluralism.
The proof is in the pudding. Today in Canada, after decades of post-national, national identity-destroying policies, less than half of Canadian youth say they would fight for the country. This marks a startling shift from generations ago, when Canadians fought for what seemed to be immutable freedoms in the Great Wars. Diasporic conflicts now erupt on Canadian streets, hate crimes against ethnic and religious groups have surged, and the once-strong Canadian consensus on immigration is solidly broken.
If Canadians want to reverse the pluralism-destroying course post-nationalism has set us on, everyone, regardless of political stripe, must acknowledge that post-nationalism has eroded Canada’s national identity to point of non-existence. That state of affairs is likely the biggest threat to Canada’s sovereignty today.
History proves this conclusion correct. For a civilization to survive the test of history it needs some sort of cohesive shared identity. Without it, collapse occurs. There’s even examples to be found within Canada’s own evolution in the 20th century. In the early 1900s a Canadian national identity had taken root in spite of high levels of immigration. Forged in the crucibles of battlefields like Vimy Ridge, peoples of many backgrounds fought together as Canadians, united by shared values of democracy, rule of law, bilingualism, and loyalty to the Crown. To be Canadian then was to embrace English or French as a primary language, respect parliamentary institutions, and demonstrate civic duty through collective efforts in war and nation-building.
Fast forward to today. Our domestic efforts fail to build critical national infrastructure and have allowed our military to atrophy to the point of near non-functionality. Our foreign policy rewards the tactics of terrorist organizations and abandons Western allies in times of crisis. Logic dictates that if the Liberal government continues eroding the Western democratic values that once, but arguably no longer, underpin Canada’s rapidly disappearing pluralistic national identity (freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equality in the rule of law’s application), then collapse is what should be expected of Canada’s once-vaunted pluralism.
Those looking for remedy from new Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney will likely be sorely disappointed. Long an adherent to the World Economic Forum’s globalist brand of post-nationalism, the best definition of Canada’s national identity he has mustered is that we’re not the United States. His new “Minister of National Identity” Stephen Guilbeault managed an arguably worse response, offering pithiness like “I won’t stand here and pretend that I can tell you what Canadian identity is or should be,” while arguing there is “no one way to be Canadian.” That neither could define Canadian identity as rooted in shared respect for things like the rule of Western-based law, freedom of speech, freedom to worship, and equality of opportunity is telling.
The reality for Mr. Carney is that his government must reverse the many changes Mr. Trudeau made under his aggressive post-national doctrine to order to rebuild Canada’s national identity, prevent pluralism’s collapse, and retain our sovereignty.
If he fails, the effect will be the same as if he were to tip over Cardiff’s speakers in the National Gallery: a shameful and purposeful squandering of an intricate, delicate masterpiece.
Multicultural Meanderings 