Chinese-sign dispute: Individual rights trump community concerns, says BCCLA

Chinese-sign dispute: Individual rights trump community concerns, says BCCLA

July 26, 2015. 6:00 pm • Section: The Search

Richmond City Council maintains it cannot mandate English in Chinese-language signs because it would face a court challenge, particularly from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Councillor Chuck Au is one of those who wants to see at least 50 per cent English on all signs.
Richmond City Council maintains it cannot mandate English in Chinese-language signs because it would face a court challenge, particularly from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Councillor Chuck Au is one of those who wants to see at least 50 per cent English on all signs.

Chinese-language signs have been a fiery issue in Richmond.

Residents have launched petitions insisting all signs contain at least some of Canada’s official languages, English or French, even if almost half the city’s population is ethnic Chinese.

Prominent Chinese leaders have also called on Richmond businesses to include English in all signs, as well for immigrants to show respect for their adopted country by following its customs.

Richmond City Council, however, maintains it cannot mandate English in Chinese-language signs because it would face a court challenge, particularly from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

In May, Richmond council attempted to sidestep a BCCLA challenge by approving a motion to begin restricting signage “clutter.” Councillors say this would deal with the controversy because most of the city’s Chinese-only signs are temporary, posted in windows or electronic.

RELATED: 

Immigrants should ‘follow Canadian customs:’ Richmond Chinese leaders

Outgoing Richmond councillor admits mistake on Chinese-sign conflict

Should money decide Richmond sign debate?

Tim Murray: The Truth Is Hateful

Sunday, 3 May 2015

The Truth Is Hateful

by Tim Murray

Jack Nicholson: You can't handle the truth

The Truth is hateful.

As such, it must not be heard. Especially in a multi-ethnic society whose government is intent upon making it even more diverse through mass immigration.

The juxtaposition of ethnicities with incompatible core values in ever more densely populated cities — fed by relentless in-migration — makes for a highly combustible mixture. Urban Canada is a tinderbox waiting to explode. Friction can become ignition. And unfettered speech can be the match.

Therefore frank discussion must be punished. It must be smothered in its tracks.

We cannot have a genuine conversation about race. We cannot give the truth a podium or an opportunity to rear its ugly head. We must not risk discord or sacrifice harmony on the altar of freedom of expression because if free speech is a right, then it must be balanced off against other rights. Rights like the right to live peacefully cheek to jowl with other ethnic enclaves. Harmony uber alles. It’s the Canadian way.

If necessary, harmony must be imposed. We cannot permit dialogue, lest the truth come out. We must not let the people understand that the superficially peaceful co-existence of mutually antagonistic worldviews and ethno-religious affinities is but a truce that cannot endure the test of serious adversity. We must not let them see through the veil, and realize that once the lid of imposed harmony is removed — as it was in Yugoslavia in the wake of Tito’s passing — ethno-nationalism and tribalism will break free and manufactured consent will be cast aside. Human nature will throw off its shackles.

Instead, any discussion about diversity must be a monologue about its inherent virtues. Citizens must be repeatedly reminded that cultural diversity is an unmitigated good, that “diversity makes us strong” and that there is “unity in diversity”. They must not learn what they already know to be true. That across the world, multiculturalism is a spectacular failure and that Canada is no exception — despite what they are told.

They must not be exposed to studies like those conducted by Robert Putnam or Robert Birrell or Frank Salter. They must not have their suspicions confirmed by the facts. They must not be provided documentation that ethnic heterogeneity erodes public trust, civic participation and social cohesion. They must not heed the advice of William Rees, that to establish the consensus needed to face the seemingly insuperable challenges ahead, Canadians, at the very least, must create “a more integrative model of multiculturalism”. To put it mildly.

The Legacy of Malcolm Brodie, Mayor of Canada’s First Asian City

 

South Vancouver, B.C. -Canada (Photo courtesy of Brad Salsberg)

South Vancouver, B.C. -Canada (Photo courtesy of Brad Salzberg)

The Legacy of Malcolm Brodie, Mayor of Canada’s First Asian City

By Brad Salzberg, April 2015

Sir John A. McDonald. Sir Wilfred Laurier. Two of the founders of our country, often referred to as “forefathers” of our nation. In modern Canada, however, we have forefathers of a different variety.

Take Richmond B. C. Mayor Malcolm Brodie. He is a forefather of a new variety. Richmond is known as the most Asian city outside of Asia. It is a Canadian municipality in which white Canadians are a minority, and it shows. Within Richmond’s business districts, Chinese languages dominate the billboards, store fronts and public advertising. Many do not include an English equivalent. When English is included, it often appears perfunctory, with Chinese characters dominating the messaging.

It’s an unusual phenomenon, and rather controversial. Community leaders, responding to community ​dissatisfaction, recently organized a public meeting to better understand public sentiment, and to hear from both proponents and detractors.

Mayor Brodie was in attendance, but refrained from making a formal statement. At issue is the method to resolve the conflict. Some local residents promote public education as a remedy, an expensive and time-consuming endeavour. Others call for passing a by-law, which another Richmond- ​Richmond Hill, Ontario- implemented several years back. Mayor Brodie, however, feels the by-law may be a violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, though it is difficult to find the logic in his thinking, considering the existing Richmond Hill bylaw.

SURREY, B.C.: Canada’s first cadet corps formed by Sikh community celebrated by government officials

 BY STAFF REPORTER, THE PROVINCE APRIL 11, 2015
B.C. celebrates Sikh pride with new cadet corps and parade

SURREY, B.C.: APRIL 10, 2015 — B.C. celebrated Vaisakhi this weekend with the historic charter signing of Canada’s first cadet corps formed by the Sikh community in Surrey at a gala on Friday, April 10, 2015. The charter signing gala for the 3300 BCR (Bhai Kanhaiya) Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps in Surrey on Friday night was attended by Defence Minister Jason Kenney, National Revenue Minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Minister of State for Multiculturalism Tim Uppal, B.C. Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services Amrik Virk, a host of MPs, MLAs, municipal politicians and about 400 guests and military personnel.

B.C. celebrated Vaisakhi this weekend with the historic charter signing of Canada’s first cadet corps formed by the Sikh community in Surrey and the annual parade in Vancouver.

Vaisakhi marks the Sikh New Year, pays tribute to the harvest and commemorates one of the most important days in the Sikh calendar — the creation of the Khalsa.

The Khalsa was founded in 1699 as a Sikh brotherhood and sisterhood to fight adversity and continues to be at the heart of Sikhism.

The charter signing gala for the 3300 BCR (Bhai Kanhaiya) Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps in Surrey on Friday night was attended by Defence Minister Jason Kenney, National Revenue Minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Minister of State for Multiculturalism Tim Uppal, B.C. Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services Amrik Virk, a host of MPs, MLAs, municipal politicians and about 400 guests and military personnel.

Rear Admiral Bill Truelove, Commander of Maritime Forces Pacific, hailed the Sikh community for supporting the Bhai Kanhaiya cadets and saluted the efforts of Vancouver newspaper publisher Harbinder Sewak, the architect of what has become one of Canada’s fastest growing cadet units.

 Kenney said the Bhai Kanhaiya cadets continue the long tradition of service by the Sikh community to the military and prepare young Canadians to become tomorrow’s leaders.

The formation of this unique cadet corps has triggered interest across Canada and as far away as London, England, in localities with sizable Sikh populations.

On Saturday, the annual Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade attracted tens of thousands of spectators to southeast Vancouver and the neighbourhood near the Ross Street Temple where the festivities began.

For a photo gallery of the parade, go to theprovince.com.

© Copyright (c) The Province

Brad Salzberg : Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity

Photograph courtesy of Brad Salzberg, Cultural Action Party

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity    

by Brad Salzberg, April 2015

 For nearly three decades I have pondered the origin, meaning and impact of Canada’s official multicultural policy. During this period, certain conclusions have crystallized in my mind, and yet at the same time, many unanswered questions remain.

It is well known that the founder of multiculturalism is former prime minister Pierre Trudeau. What is not so well known are the circumstances under which this maverick prime minister formulated multicultural ideology, and it’s eventual legislation.

Trudeau was the first western leader to meet with Mao Tse Tung, founder of the People’s Republic of China, in the year 1970.  Subsequent visits to China would follow, including a walk along the Great Wall, during which the Prime Minister did a ballet pirouette, subsequently explained as a way to break the formality of the occasion.

Less than one year after Trudeau’s first visit to China, he introduced multicultural ideology to Canada. His intention, as he publicly stated, was for multiculturalism to “function within a bi-lingual framework”. It would take seventeen more years for multiculturalism to achieve “official” status. In 1988, the policy was entrenched in our constitution as the Multicultural Act of Canada. By 2008, largely due to the influx of foreign money, the “function within a bi-lingual framework” component had all but disappeared.

Do you believe Canada is accepting too many immigrants and too many “visible minorities?”

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/polls/Do-you-believe-Canada-is-accepting-too-many–296288261.html

POLL

Do you believe Canada is accepting too many immigrants and too many “visible minorities?”

VIEW RESULTS