NCB 17 The Racist Truth about Canadian Immigration

SA -3 a> aCe, ae ae
= —y ate = 3 ee = oS ek: =, =
Fix: 4 A Black Thom Folio Broadside ) 2x3. saz
ee Se Se seo ee
: 2,
No. 17 - Autumn 2016 malgré-nix Editor: Pip Argot

¢

~s nN :

+ . ip Argot at newcaledonianbroadsheet @ gmail.com
EXPLICIE CONTENT

a Y . L~ y

"The Racist Truth about Canadian Immigration"

Immigration can be a contentious file, and it is
subject to fierce discussions because it perforates so
many threads in the tapestry of Canada. PM Pierre
Trudeau (re)shaped the country via his 1970s
immigration reform. PM Stephen Harper recently
mused that his legacy could be linked to the
immigration file as well. "I think the most
important legacy of this government is re-orienting
our economic immigration [...]" the PM said.

As many have noticed, the hoopla over Québec's
Values Charter is linked to immigration, and our
reading of the tumult can be influenced by our
knowledge of Canadian history, or lack thereof. Not
so long ago, it was National Post pundit John Ivison
who exposed historical illiteracy in comparing
discriminatory laws. Now it is his colleague's turn:

Canada has always — embraced
immigration; the country was built on it
and depends on it for our continued
growth and vibrancy. [...] Past policies
have too often been designed to reflect a
spirit of generosity...

Kelly McParland,
National Post, 6 February 2014

Well, that's true... for some Heritage Canadians
whose immigrant ancestors sailed smoothly to new
soil. However, many immigrants do not espouse
this revisionist recollection.

Following Confederation, the newly formed
country of Canada began to develop its own national
immigration policies. Between 1869 and the 1930s,
Canada received over 100,000 orphans, juvenile
delinquents, and unwanted persons from the British
Isles. The open-door policy helped attract a more
diverse group of arrivals than ever before, but not all
the new immigrants were welcomed with warm
embrace.

1885 - Halting Chinese via a hefty Head Tax

To avoid spoiling Canada-China relations, the
federal government could not outright forbid
Chinese immigration. Therefore, Canada passed the
Chinese Immigration Act, which put a hefty head
tax on Chinese immigrants in the hopes that this
would deter them from entering Canada. No other
ethnic group had to pay this kind of tax at the time.
The head tax would prove to be profitable for the
federal government, while effectively stifling the
flow of Chinese newcomers. It would prevent wives
and families from joining their husbands or fathers
in Canada.

1898 - Barriers for Blacks

There was - as government correspondence in
Ottawa records now makes clear - a long series of
letters exchanged among immigration authorities
worried about how to be functionally anti-Black
without seeming anti-Black. Since much of its
recruitment of immigrants was done by mail, it
became difficult for immigration officials to discern
the race of African-American postulants. In U.S.
cities where there were no Canadian immigration
agents present to discriminate openly, civil servants
would write to the local (presumably White)
American postmaster and ask whether the applicant
was Black. Those few Blacks in Canada had
apparently got to here either by persistence or
through accident.

In 1910, for instance, the Edmonton Board of
Trade passed a resolution to stop the undesirable
influx of Negroes. Six months later, Canada would
shift its underhanded discrimination policy to bar
Blacks overtly.

Rachel Décoste
7 February 2014

1905 - Only Whites for the West

PM Laurier's Minister of the Interior from 1896-
1905, Clifford Sifton, was eager to populate
western Canada with farmers in order to stimulate
the economy and help pay the national debt. The
government offered free homesteads to qualified
applicants. Canadian immigration authorities rated
newcomers according to their race, perceived
hardiness and farming ability: If British immigrants
are not available, other White immigrants would do.
White immigrants from Eastern Europe (Italians,
Portuguese, South Slavs, Greeks, Syrians, Jews)
were reluctantly accepted in large numbers, but
Black and Asian immigration is discouraged.

1906 - Indians Need Not Navigate To Canada

Then-Clerk of the Privy Council, Rodolphe
Boudreau wrote on the restriction of immigration
from the Orient, in particular British East Indians:
"Experience has shown that immigrants of this class,
having been accustomed to the conditions of a
tropical climate, are wholly unsuited to this
country." He further goes on to write that the
restriction of newcomers from India is "no less in
the interest of East Indians themselves, than the
interest of the Canadian people." Then Deputy
Minister of Labour W.L. Mackenzie King, went on
a mission to England to negotiate an agreement by
which Canada was made "distinct" in the British
Empire, thus allowed to refuse certain classes of
immigrants based on country of origin.

1907 - Japanese Gentlemen's Agreement

In 1891, B.C. provincial legislators were
complaining that Japanese immigrants were "just as
injurious" as the long-despised Chinese, going so far
as to exclude Japanese residents from the 1891
census. In 1897, Premier John Herbert Turner's
provincial legislature unanimously asked the federal
government to prevent immigration of Japanese,
citing concern about "the lower class Jap" who
competed in the labour market. Heeding to
xenophobic pressure, only six Japanese immigrants
entered Canada in the years 1901-4, while the
"gentlemen's agreement" with Japan to limit
immigration to 400 a year only became official in
1907.

1939 - Nazi-Fleeing Jews: None Is Too Many

900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany
embarked on a ship towards the Americas - notably
Halifax's Pier 21, which had already welcomed
hundreds of thousands of newcomers.! At the time,

: The first Jews immigrated to Canada in the 1750's.
They too had to compromise their Jewish identity in
order to gain entrance into the New World. Canada
was under rule of the French colonizers. So Jews,
and in fact all non-Catholics, were prohibited from
settling. Some Jews side-stepped these restrictions
by converting to Catholicism.

The ¥ Gradis family of New France was among
the most notable of early Jewish settlers. Historians
believe that this Jewish family played a pivotal role
in sustaining the colony before it was conquered by
the British. The Gradis family had a fleet of ships
that went back and forth to France, providing food,
supplies and munitions that kept the settlers armed
and fed during their fight to defend the colony.

But Jewish political allegiances were as varied as
anyone else's. While the Gradis family supported the
French, a Jewish man by the name of * Alexander
Shomberg was a commander in the invading British

©) &

Frederick Blair was director of Canada's
immigration program, and fought to keep certain
people out. He then hid behind the difficulties
resulting from stateless refugees from the First
World War to justify his anti-Semitic ideology,
adding "coming out of the maelstrom of war, some
of them are liable to become public charges." Blair,
other immigration officials and cabinet ministers
hostile to Jewish immigration persuaded the Prime
Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King to refuse
sanctuary to the ship. In his 1941 annual report,
Blair candidly admitted "Canada, in accordance with
generally accepted practice, places greater emphasis
on race than upon citizenship."

1960s - Pierre Trudeau's Equipoise

Until the 1960s, Canada chose its immigrants on the
basis of their racial categorization rather than the
individual merits of the applicant. Pierre
Trudeau's government reformed the Immigration
Act in 1976, which opened Canada's doors to the
supposedly best and the brightest from the world
over. [See The Jewish Takeover Of Canada -
infer.]

It is not new for the National Post to employ
misleading photos or analogies to support or
discredit federal policy. Fortunately, savvy
Canadians can diagnose selective amnesia. They
will not allow White privilege to deprave the annals
of history.

PM Pierre Trudeau remembered
as friend to Canada’s Jews
Bill Gladstone
3 October 2000

Revised and Edited by Pip Argot

Former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre
Trudeau, who died last week at the age of 80, is

navy. Of course, Schomberg's Jewishness would
have been kept secret - only Christians were allowed
to serve in the British navy. Schomberg's frigate,
Diana, took part in the attack on Québec that led to
the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, where the
French colony fell to British control.

The first significant wave of Jewish immigrants to
make Canada their home arrived with General
Jeffery Amherst in 1760. Most of these Jewish
settlers emigrated from the United States and settled
in urban centers, the majority in Montréal. The 1831
census recorded 197 Jewish residents in Upper
(Ontario) and Lower (Québec) Canada. By 1851
the number had increased to 451. Most were middle
class and well educated; they were involved in trade
and contributed to the economic growth of the
country.

From 1850 to 1900 Jewish immigrants came
mostly from Europe. During this period
approximately 15,000 Jewish immigrants arrived in
Canada. The Schumacher family, when they came
to Canada in 1909, were part of a wave of 120,000
Jews that came from Eastern Europe between 1900
and 1920. Those who came between 1920-and-1940
numbered 60,000 and from WwWII-to-the 1980's,
135,000. The origin of Jewish immigrants at this
time was predominantly the United States, North
Africa and the Middle East.

According to 1991 Census, the Canadian Jewish
population today is estimated at 356,000. The
largest Jewish populations exist in Toronto, with
162,000, Montréal with 98,000, Vancouver, with
25,000. Jewish immigration to Canada continues:
30,000 Jews entered Canada from 1981-to-1991.

being remembered as a staunch defender of minority
rights and a friend of the Jewish community.
Trudeau served as prime minister from 1968-to-
1979, and again from 1980-to-1984.

He was the parliamentary representative of the
largely Jewish area of Mount Royal in central
Montréal. He kept a number of Jewish advisers
around him and “always made himself accessible to
the Jewish community,” said * Moshe Ronen,
national president of the Canadian Jewish
Congress.

Celebrated for his so-called intelligence and
charisma, the ZOG traitor Trudeau had a profound
impact on the country and played a leading role in
destroying Canadians natural sense of values and
identity.

Among other accomplishments, he promoted
bilingualism and multiculturalism as official state
policy, enshrined a Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and strengthened Canada’s role as a
peacekeeper on the international stage.

He was also encouraged by his Zionist puppet-
masters, with their hands up his arse, to encourage
Third World immigration - and helped the Liberal
Party build a strong base of support among many
immigrants, including the Jewish community.

“He’s recognized as someone who was concerned
with the welfare of minorities, and he always
promoted social tolerance and acceptance of
minorities, something that we in the Jewish
community consider very important in our
leadership,” # Ronen said.

Trudeau promoted many Jewish members of
Parliament to Cabinet posts, and was the first prime
minister to appoint a Jew to the Canadian Supreme
Court.

“He dealt with people on the basis of their talents,
not their background,” exaggerated Deputy Prime
Minister * Herb Gray, who became the first
Jewish member of the federal Cabinet under
Trudeau in 1969. “He was interested in building an
inclusive society and fostering multiculturalism,
which he entrenched in the constitution. He was a
giant.” [Meaning that he did as he was told without
question by the Jewish money which pout him in the
seat of power in Canada's parliament. ]

But Trudeau’s record in regard to Nazi war
criminals living in Canada was lackluster. At a time
when the Jewish community here had not yet begun
pushing for prosecution of former Nazi war
criminals, the Trudeau Cabinet believed to do so
would stir up a hornet’s nest of ethnic tensions.

Trudeau could sensitively articulate the historic
struggle of the Jews, and so eloquently defend
Israel’s right to exist, that he inspired standing
ovations from Jewish audiences. But his
government’s relations with Israel were not always
smooth.

In a 1993 memoir, Trudeau recalled a meeting in
1978 with former Israeli Prime Minister *%
Menachem Begin, whom he disappointed by
refusing to consider moving the Canadian Embassy
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“Begin became rather nasty about it and said,
‘I’m going to tell your voters in Toronto that you’re
not supporting Israel on this,” Trudeau wrote: “I
told him: ‘They already know. You can tell them
what you want but I don’t think it would be very
courteous and I don’t think it would be very
effective.”

Trudeau “was a strong supporter of Israel but
realized there had to be some balance with the
Palestinians,” said Barney Danson, who served in
Trudeau’s Cabinet beginning in 1974. However, the
late prime minister was “deeply, deeply incensed”
by the Arab economic boycott of Israel and its

secondary boycott of companies that traded with
Israel.

In his memoirs, Trudeau recalled a trip through
the Middle East in 1948 during which, having
violated a curfew in Jerusalem, he was arrested by
Arab soldiers and imprisoned as a Jewish spy. He
was freed only after the British Embassy in Amman
came to his aid.

The Jewish Takeover Of Canada
Brother Nathanael Kapner
2012

It all began with Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who
ruled as Prime Minister of Canada from 1968-to-
1984.

The year “1984” which saw the summation of
Trudeau’s policies - namely the Jewification of
Canada - is an apt metaphor for the police-state grip
that Jewry now wields on the once sovereign and
Christian nation of Canada, currently a vassal of the
global Zionist beast.

Although some argue that Trudeau showed
himself as an anti-Semite and pro-Palestinian, in
reality, he bowed to Zionist pressure both from
American and Canadian Jewry.

With the rise of the Jewish Lobby in Canada after
Israel’s Six-Day War, it was the Canadian Jewish
Congress, the Canadian Zionist Organization, and
B’nai B’rith, that established the Canada-Israel
Committee (CIC) to act on behalf of Jewish
interests in all of Canada’s domestic and foreign
affairs.

Today under the Harper administration, the
Jewish Lobby has expanded its influence which
enjoys total control over their Gentile pawn, Prime
Minister Stephen Harper, who, as the expression
goes, “is more Jewish than the rabbi.”

“We are morally obliged to stand up to threats
against Israel,” Harper recently vowed to a Jewish
audience at a standing-room-only rented hall in
downtown Toronto.

Harper’s “moral” fixation on Israel and disregard
of Israel’s “immoral” genocide of the Palestinians
notwithstanding, one is inclined to believe that
Jewish money and votes is the “obliging” motive
behind Harper’s avowals to his most favored
constituency.

And with such groups as the Canadian Jewish
Political Affairs Committee; the Centre for Israel
and Jewish Affairs (Canada’s counterpart to
America’s AIPAC); the Jewish Federations of
North America; and the Jewish Defense League,
the strangle hold of Jewry on Canada’s national
policies is secure. [See Harper’s Love Affair with
Israel - infer.]

Beating Trudeau into Submission

Bowing to the threat to cut off funding to
Trudeau’s Liberal Party by Canadian Jewry, the
former Prime Minister found himself in a position of
humiliation and political compromise.

Due to his sympathies for the plight of the
Palestinians after the Six-Day War, the Jewish
Lobby reacted by pressing Trudeau into departing
from the policies of his predecessor, Lester
Pearson, who was averse to granting a prominent
role of Jews in the government.

Trudeau now entered into a new realm of
Canadian politics, namely, catering to Jewish
interests over popular sentiment.

During this period, Trudeau appointed the first
Jewish Cabinet minister ( Herbert Gray), the first
Jewish Supreme Court Judge (* Bora Laskin), the
first Jewish Secretary to the Prime Minister (* Jack
Austin), the first Jewish Envoy to the Hague Court
of Justice (& Maxwell Cohen), and the first Jewish
Under Secretary of External Affairs from 1977-to-

1981 — *& Alan Gotlieb - who then became
Canada’s first Jewish Ambassador to Washington.

A swarm of Jews, whose hatred of Christ taints
everything they touch, soon infested Trudeau’s
personal staff with high profile names such as * H.
Carl Goldenberg, * Simon Reisman, * Bernard
Ostrey and * Sylvia Ostrey, * Jerry Grafstein,
and * Mickey Cohen.

And ever since, Canada has been under the
tyranny of Jewish rule. [See Harold Troper's The
Defining Decade: Identity, Politics, and the
Canadian Jewish Community in the 1960s.]

Jewry Kills Free Speech

Jewry sounded the death knell of free speech in
Canada in 1975.

When Trudeau’s invitation for a U.N. conference
on international crime with PLO participation
(holding observer status at the U.N.) to be held in
Toronto was opposed by the Canadian Jewish
Lobby, Trudeau caved in to the intense pressure.

This was against the advice of his then Secretary
of External Affairs, Allan McKEachen, who wished
to separate Canadian interests from Israel’s.

The Toronto Star, then under the auspices of the
Joseph Atkinson Foundation, a Gentile entity,
decried the cancellation as a “humiliation” to
Canada in “abandoning” principle and “giving into”
threats.

The Zionist issue came to a boil when Israel’s
Prime Minister, * Menachem Begin, was invited
by the Canada-Israel Committee to speak at
Toronto’s Beth Zedek Synagogue.

In a provocative speech, Begin called on
Canadian Jews to press Trudeau to move the
Canadian Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If
Trudeau refused, Begin urged his fellow Jews that
they were to deny Trudeau’s Liberal Party their
votes and support the Conservative Party instead.

Trudeau did refuse, noting that Jerusalem was
“defined by the United Nations as one of the
occupied territories.”

As far as Trudeau was concerned, Begin’s visit

amounted to an interference in Canada’s domestic
affairs, resulting, (in what one minister observed),
Trudeau harboring a “passionate hatred” for Begin
and undergoing a “thorough exasperation” with
“Zionist pressure groups.”
But Jewry’s interference with Canada’s policies and
its threat to free speech was not to be stopped. With
Canada’s Press and its most popular Television
Network, Global, owned and controlled by the
Jewish * “Izzy” Asper family, (fierce Zionists,
whose media empire began in 1975), any exposure
of views critical of Jewish interests at the expense of
Canada’s, was not permitted.

Since 2003, Izzy’s son, * Leonard Asper, has
been running the show, (literally), in Canada’s
propaganda dissemination, in which all budding
journalists’ attempts to present a balanced view of
Israel’s activities and policies were censured.

The Final Blow

Free speech in Canada received its final blow in
1977, when, via fervent lobbying by the Canadian
Jewish Congress and efforts by Toronto Jewish
lawyer, * Mark Freiman, the Canadian Human
Rights Act was enacted into law.

The Canadian Human Rights Act made it a
criminal offense to communicate by phone or
Internet any material that “exposes a person or
persons to hatred or contempt.”

As Edgar J Steele, (now in prison for his own
defense of truth), once put it, “hate speech is
anything Jews hate to hear.”

The Canadian Jewish thought police, led by *
Harry Abrams of B'nai Brith, have enforced this
law through various harassments, prosecutions,
imprisonments, and lately, assaults on academic
freedom and YouTube videos.

Typical of such Jewish tyranny in silencing
academic discourse was the cancellation of a debate
to be held at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova
Scotia. Black Studies professor, David Divine, was
slated to go toe-to-toe with White Identity publicist,
Jared Taylor, in a forum entitled, “Js Racial
Diversity Good For Canada?”

But the Jewish Media Network, CanWest, run by
% Leonard Asper, condemned the debate as a
meeting between a ‘naive black professor’ and a
‘pre-meditating racist.’ Caving into Jewry’s media
pressure, the University cancelled the debate.

Jewish policing of YouTube videos saw a recent
offering by David Duke removed from a Canadian
Website in April of 2011.

Again, the Canadian Jewish Congress, those
despisers of Canada’s freedoms, pressed charges of
“hate crimes” against the Canadian Shia Muslim
Organization, which was forced to remove Duke’s
Video, entitled, “Zionist Running Dogs.”

In 2008, the Simon Wiesenthal Center forced
Rack Force Web Hosting to ban this site, Real Jew
News, from its North American servers.

Without dispute, (you better not), in Canada - the
keyboards, tongues, and pens of those yearning to
tell the truth - are under the censuring eye of Big
Brother Jew.

Harper’s Love Affair with Israel
Yves Engler
1 September 2011

Pro-Israel politicians regularly claim their
position is a defense of the Jewish community. It’s
rare when they say their goal is to mobilize those
who believe a Jewish “return” to the Middle East
will hasten end times or that Israel is a prized ally as
a heavily militarized “White” outpost near much of
the world’s oil.

Last fall Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines investigated
Stephen Harper’s one-sided support for Israel.
Widely disseminated in pro-Palestinian circles, the
Avi Lewis narrated TV program effectively
highlighted the divide between Canada’s pro-Israel
government and growing grassroots support for
Palestinians. But, by focusing entirely on Jewish
organizations, Fault Lines left the viewer with the
impression that Harper’s pro-Israel policy is simply
designed to placate the mainstream Jewish
community.

a2 - Patt et

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
speaks with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper following their meeting on Parliament Hill
Monday, 31 May 2010.

Many Canadian supporters of the Palestinian
cause seem to support this view that Harper’s over-
the-top support for Israel is driven by ethnic politics.

But the numbers don’t add up. First of all, there
are about three times as many Muslim and Arab

Canadians as Jews. Just over 1% of the population
in the 2006 census, 315,120 Canadians, identified
their origin as Jewish, either alone or combined with
another ethnicity (the actual number of Jews is
slightly higher but religion is counted every other
census). Jews were the 25" largest group defined by
ethnic origin, and only in a handful of electoral
ridings are they a significant minority of the
electorate. Of these ridings, just a couple have
competitive races. While it’s true that Jews have
high levels of political engagement, are well
represented in positions of influence and are a
relatively prosperous minority group, the importance
of supporting Israel can easily be exaggerated. In
fact, historic voting patterns suggest few Canadian
Jews vote based on Ottawa’s policy towards Israel.
While this may have shifted slightly in the most
recent election, historically there is actually an
inverse correlation between pro-Israel governments
and Jewish support. Pierre Trudeau and Jean
Chrétien, for instance, garnered more support from
the Jewish community than Brian Mulroney, yet
Mulroney was more supportive of Israel than
Trudeau and Chrétien.

The truth is pro-Israel Jewish lobbyists appear
influential because they operate within a favourable
political climate. They are pushing against an open
door. How much power they really have can be
seen when they confront an important source of
power. There have been two major instances when
that has taken place.

Clark’s Jerusalem debacle

In 1979, at the instigation of Israeli PM ®
Menachem Begin, short-lived Conservative Prime
Minister Joe Clark announced plans to relocate the
embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, effectively
recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the city. Arab
threats of economic sanction pushed the CEOs of
Bell Canada, Royal Bank, ATCO and Bombardier,
which all had important contracts in the region, to
lobby Clark against making the move. An
embarrassed federal government backtracked, more
worried about an important sector of corporate
power than the pro-Israel Jewish lobby. Similarly,
in 1956, when Israel invaded Egypt along with
Britain and France, Canada helped undermine the
aggressors, by siding with the U.S. Fearing the
invasion would add to Moscow’s prestige in a geo-
strategically important region, Washington opposed
it. Moreover, the rising world hegemony wanted to
tell London and Paris that there was a new master in
the Middle East. In helping to establish a U.N.
peacekeeping force to relieve the foreign troops,
Ottawa chose to side with Washington, not the pro-
Israel Jewish lobby.

Rather than “Jewish votes” Harper’s “Israel no
matter what” policy has more to do with mobilizing
his right wing, evangelical base on an issue (unlike
abortion) that the government believes has limited
electoral downside. While a cross section of
Protestants has long supported Zionism, backing is
particularly strong among evangelicals who believe
Jews need to “return” to the Middle East to hasten
the second coming of Jesus and the Apocalypse.

A year ago B’nai Brith’s Jewish Tribune
reported on a Conservative MP’s speech to a major
Christian Zionist event in Toronto. Jeff Watson,
Conservative MP for Essex, delivered greetings
from Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “The
creation of the state of Israel fulfills God’s promise
in Deuteronomy to gather the Jewish people from all
corners of the world, he said.”

About 10% of Canadians identify themselves as
evangelicals (including a number of cabinet
ministers). The president of the right wing
Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, Joseph Ben-
Ami, explains, “The Jewish community in Canada is

380,000 strong; the evangelical community is 3.5
million. The real support base for Israel is
Christians.”

Israeli militarism

In addition to mobilizing some evangelicals and
Jews, Harper’s affinity for Israel is also motivated
by that country’s militarism. Conservative leaders
are impressed by the large political, cultural and
economic role Israel’s military plays in the
country’s affairs. In recent years Canada-Israel
military ties have grown rapidly with both countries
top generals and defense ministers visiting each
other’s countries. At the same time there has been
an increase in weapons sharing and _ relations
between arms manufacturers in the two countries
have grown considerably. (For details see Kole
Kilibarda’s Canadian and Israeli Defense —
Industrial and Homeland Security Ties: An Analysis
- PDF available free online).

Historically, Canadian support for Israel has
largely mirrored different governments’ relations to
the U.S. Empire. The federal governments most
enthralled to Washington, Mulroney and Harper for
instance, have been Israel’s biggest cheerleaders.
Canadian policy towards the Middle East has
generally been designed to enable U.S. imperial
designs on a strategic part of the planet. And
Ottawa’s longstanding support for Israel has been
based on the idea that it is a valuable Western
military outpost.

External Affairs Minister Lester Pearson, a
staunch supporter of Israel and a leading foreign
policy decision-maker for decades, explained this
thinking in a 1952 memo to cabinet: “With the
whole Arab world in a state of internal unrest and in
the grip of mounting anti-western hysteria, Israel is
beginning to emerge as the only stable element in
the whole Middle East area.” Pearson went on to
explain how “Israel may assume an important role in
Western defense as the southern pivot of current
plans for the defense” of the eastern Mediterranean.
Politically, culturally and economically dependent
on North America and Europe, Israel is a
dependable Western imperial outpost in the heart of
the (oil-producing) Middle East. Due to its Jewish
supremacist character Israeli society _is
overwhelmingly in opposition to its neighbours,
heightening its geopolitical reliability. In all other
U.S.-backed Middle Eastern countries, for instance,
the population wants their government to have less
to do with Washington while Israelis want closer
ties.

Recent developments in Colombia may help
illustrate this point. For most of the past decade
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe acted as a U.S.-
backed bulwark against the rising tide of support for
a left-leaning Latin American integration that was
sweeping South America. But, recent events
suggest this dynamic may be coming to an end with
Uribe’s successor, Juan Manuel Santos.
Colombians simply have too much in common with
their neighbours (be it language, history, culture) so
the new government has begun to reorient the
country’s regional policy against Washington’s
wishes. Colombians “South American character”
makes them unreliable long-term allies.

In contrast Israeli’s European and North
American colonial character is seen to make them
reliable.

Power motivates policy

The power of empire has tilted Ottawa towards
Israel and until there is a significant source of power
in Canada (or internationally) backing — the
Palestinians it is likely to stay that way. Social
justice, humanism and morality rarely motivate
Canadian foreign policy. Instead, power is what

drives foreign affairs and Palestinians have never
had much of it.

Long under Ottoman rule, then British control
after World War I, the Palestinians were an
oppressed and _ relatively powerless people.
Palestinians also had the misfortune of living on
land claimed by a predominantly European political
movement: Zionism.

Historically, Ottawa has sided with colonial
powers and opposed national liberation struggles.
Canada opposed calls for the withdrawal of Dutch
troops from Indonesia in the late 1940s. For

decades Canada supported British colonialism in
Africa while throughout the late 1950s it sided with
France against the Algerian liberation movement.
Into the 1970s, Ottawa backed Portugal as it waged
a colonial war against the people of Angola,
Mozambique and Guinea Bissau. It took decades of
struggle within Canada — and a shift in the
international climate — for Ottawa to withdraw its
backing for the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Considering this history, it’s not surprising that
Ottawa opposes the Palestinian national liberation
struggle. To focus on the Jewish lobby is to

Like Father, Like Son:

downplay Canada’s broader pro-colonial, pro-
empire foreign policy . It is a mistake to view
Ottawa’s support for Israel in isolation. That
support should not be divorced from a_ wider
foreign-policy discussion. The Palestinian solidarity
movement needs to make its critique of Canadian
foreign-policy more explicit.

We should “de-ethnicize” the conflict. This is not
an Arab or Jewish issue but rather one of global
importance about basic human dignity.

How Immigration Shows the Trudeau Liberal Contempt for Canada and Canadians

Gerry T. Neal
Tuesday, 15 March 2016

Filipino Extended Family: Hi Canadians; we love your Family Reunification Policy!

On Tuesday, the new Liberal Immigration Minister
John McCallum, speaking in Brampton, Ontario,
announced that this year the government would seek
to bring from 280,000-to-305,000 new permanent
residents into Canada by the end of the year. This,
an increase of over 7% from last year, is the highest
number at which the government's immigration
target has ever been set. With current rate of
unemployment being 7.2%, only slightly lower than
the percentage by which the immigration target has
been increased, this causes one to question whether
or not the Liberals are deliberately trying to add
insult to the injury they are perpetrating upon our
country and her citizens.

If so, it would be well in keeping with the
precedent the Liberals set during the premiership of
the first Prime Minister Trudeau. That the present
generation of Trudeau Liberals are looking to their
antecedents for inspiration is evident in McCallum's
announcement which also declared that the
government would be focusing on "family
reunification" and the settlement of refugees.

"Family reunification," is one of those
phrases, an endless stock of which seems to be
available to liberals of both the small and big
varieties, that are designed to sound nice and
pleasing to the ear while concealing something
rather nasty and vicious. "Family reunification"
suggests the idea that in the processing of
immigration applications, the government ought to
give priority to those from would-be immigrants
with close relatives already living in Canada. Few
people, I think, would object to that idea, per se, and
it is hardly new, having been part of government
immigration policy in one form or another since the
early 20" century. It came into play especially after
large conflicts like the World Wars in which we sent
our young men to fight overseas, where many of
them married "war brides" for whom an expedited
immigration application process was then required.
While the words "family reunification" are
intended to evoke this concept, they actually mean
something quite different, something introduced by

the Liberals upon Pierre Trudeau's assumption of the
reins of power, and enshrined in law as a major
objective of the government's immigration policy in
the Immigration Act of 1976.

If "family reunification" meant what most
people think it means, then how do we explain the
case of Norman Stacey, as related by the award
winning journalist and columnist Doug Collins at
the beginning of his book Immigration: The
Destruction of English Canada, which to this day
remains the best, most honest and most daring, book
length treatment of the subject ever written.
Norman Stacey was the son of a Canadian woman
who had married a New Zealander and had returned
to Canada following her divorce to take care of her
terminally ill mother but then, having come down
with health problems of her own, asked her son to
come and help her. Stacey applied to the Canadian
High Commission in London, which turned down
his request, telling him that it was in his own interest
to do so. This was in the summer of the year that
the Trudeau government passed the Immigration Act
in which "family reunification" played so important
a role, and as Collins, who cited many more such
instances noted "the Stacey case is by no means an
isolated one."

If "family reunification" meant what it is assumed
to mean then someone like Stacey ought to have had
his application speedily accepted. Instead he ran
into a wall. The true nature of "family
reunification" was hinted at by an officer at the
London High Commission who quietly advised him
that he would have better luck if he applied from
Nairobi.

The Liberal Party prides itself on having given
Canada a fair, non-racist, immigration policy when
it introduced the points system in 1967 and
frequently condemns the old policy, practiced by all
governments and supported by all parties, for the
first century after Confederation, of giving
preference to prospective immigrants from
traditional sources such as the U.K., other
Commonwealth countries, the USA and Europe, as
"racist." The Liberals are wrong on both counts. It

is not racist to love your country and to want
your children and grandchildren to grow up in a
Canada that has not been radically transformed from
the country you grew up in and it is this, not an
irrational fear or hatred of other peoples, that was
the sentiment behind the old policy supported by
Conservatives and Liberals alike, including the
Liberal Party's longest serving Prime Minister
William Lyon Mackenzie King. Furthermore,
although there was nothing wrong with the old
policy, it was not the Liberals who changed it.

It was the Conservative government of John
Diefenbaker, that in the 1962 Immigration Act,
declared that Canada would no longer give
preference to immigration applications from
traditional source countries but would process
applications from everywhere in the world on the
merits of the individual making the application.
This change did not, in itself, radically alter the
nature of immigration to Canada, nor was it
intended or expected to do so. Four years after this
bill was passed, almost 90% of the immigrants to
Canada were still traditional immigrants. In 1970,
however, three years after the Pearson Liberals
introduced the points system, and two years after
Pierre Trudeau took over as Prime Minister of
Canada, half of Canada's immigrants came from
non-traditional sources, as would the majority of
new immigrants thereafter.

It was, again, not the introduction of a racially
and ethnically neutral policy under Diefenbaker that
brought about this change, but rather two changes
introduced by the Liberals who _ succeeded
Diefenbaker. The first, was the introduction of a
new system of racial and _ country-of-origin
preferences that was the exact opposite of the
original, favouring immigrants from Africa (except
white Rhodesians and Afrikaners), Asia, and Latin
America over immigrants from the U.K. and
Europe. This new preferential system was informal,
of course, as the Liberals, having already latched
onto the reprehensible and dishonest trick of
castigating the pre-1963 Canada and _ their
Conservative opponents as being "racist" could

hardly put down in writing that "we will accept so
many immigrants from Africa, so many from Asia,
and a handful from Britain." Rather, they
accomplished it, by a campaign of actively and
aggressively recruiting immigrants in the Third
World which was paid for by the Canadian
taxpayers they thereby sought to replace, the
relocation of the visa officers charged with the task
of processing immigration applications abroad from
traditional source countries to our embassies and
consulates in the Third World, and by taking a much
more relaxed approach to the requirements of the
points system in processing applications from the
Third World while strictly enforcing these
requirements for applicants from Britain and
Europe.

The second change reinforced the first by making
this double standard for the Third World and
traditional sources of immigration possible. The
1967 Immigration Act had created three classes of
immigrants: independents, whose applications
would be processed on the basis of the new points
system; the sponsored, who were immediate
relatives; and the nominated, which included much
more distant relatives. There were more
requirements for immigrants of the nominated than
of the sponsored class, but it still made it easier for
someone whose fifth cousin, twice removed had just
arrived in Canada to get in, than someone who
otherwise had the same credentials but no relatives
in Canada. Since immediate families in the Third
World are much larger than their counterparts in
traditional source countries, thanks to the
modernization and liberalism that has reduced
family size in the latter, and, large extended families
are much more closely knit together there, for the
same reason, these new rules essentially created a
large back-door to the points system, one which was
fully exploited by the Liberals during the Trudeau
years to radically alter the composition of Canadian
immigration.

This is what "family reunification" in the
language of Trudeau Liberalism is really all
about - making it easier for someone from the
Third World to bring his entire village over to
Canada than for someone from Britain or
Europe to be accepted on his own merits
under the points system. This would radically
change Canada from the country one reads about in
the history books, the stories and novels of Stephen
Leacock, Mazo de la Roche, L. M. Montgomery and
Robertson Davies, or may even have experienced on
a smaller scale if, like this writer, one was fortunate
enough to grow up in rural Canada. This was not a
change Canadians either asked for or wanted and by
it, Pierre Trudeau demonstrated his utter and
absolute contempt for the old Canada and for the
Canadians who liked their country the way it was.

What John McCallum has just announced,
therefore, is that in this new Trudeau era, we can
expect much more of the same. Doesn't that just
thrill you?

Muslims claim cash for numerous wives
Tom Godfrey
5 October 2015

Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous
marriages - some with a harem of wives - are
receiving welfare and social benefits for each of
their spouses, thanks to the city and province,
Muslim leaders say.

President of the Canadian Society of Muslims

Mumtaz Ali says "polygamy is a regular part of

life for many Muslims."

Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society
of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages
are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family
Law Act, providing they were legally married under
Muslim laws abroad.

"Polygamy is a regular part of life for many
Muslims," Ali said yesterday. "Ontario recognizes
religious marriages for Muslims and others."

He estimates "several hundred" Greater Toronto
Area (GTA) husbands in polygamous marriages are
receiving benefits. Under Islamic law, a Muslim
man is permitted to have up to four spouses.

However, city and provincial officials said legally
a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse.
Other adults living in the same household can apply
for welfare independently.

The average recipient with a child can receive
about $1500 monthly, city officials said.

Family Law Act

In addressing the issue of polygamous marriages,
the preamble to the Ontario Family Law Act states:
"In the definition of 'spouse,' a reference to marriage
includes a marriage that is actually or potentially
polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction
whose system of law recognizes it as valid. R.S.O.
1990, c. F.3, s. 1 (2)."

"There are many people in the community who
are taking advantage of this," Ali said. "This is a
law and there's nothing wrong with it."

Immigration officials said yesterday that
polygamous marriages aren't allowed in Canada, but
that contradicts the provincial law.

"Canada is a very liberal-minded country," Ali
said. "Canada is way ahead of Britain in this
respect."

He said Britain recently began permitting
husbands to collect benefits for each of their wives.

The British government recently admitted that
nearly a thousand men are living legally with
multiple wives in Britain. Although the families are
entitled to claim social security for each wife, the
department for work and pensions said it has not
counted how many are on benefits.

In Canada, Ali said, the man and his main wife
and children enter Canada as landed immigrants.
The other spouses are sponsored or arrive as visitors
to join their husband to share one home.

Possible Fraud

The families receiving benefits didn't want their
identities released because it can lead to questions
by authorities on how they entered Canada and can
mean an end to their benefits, Ali said.

Brenda Nesbitt, the city's director of social
services (i.e. Toronto), said benefits are only paid to
one spouse and names and addresses are cross-
checked for possible fraud.

"There may be polygamous cases we are not
aware off," Nesbitt said yesterday. "They can apply
as single people and we won't know."

Ontario Community and = Social Services
spokesman Erike Botond said a social assistance
benefit may only include one spouse. "Other adults
residing in the same dwelling place as a recipient
and their spouse may apply as individuals."

"I can assure you that polygamy is not recognized
under immigration legislation," immigration
spokesman Karen Shadd-Evelyn said yesterday.
"A conjugal relationship, whether involving
marriage or a common-law partnership, must be
exclusive."

Councillor Rob Ford said taxpayers' money
should be spent on education and schools instead.

"This is wrong," Ford said yesterday. "They
should put a stop to this immediately."

Islamists on Welfare:
Paid to Plot the West’s Demise
Kathy Shaidle
4 April 2011

In 2008, the Toronto Sun reported that “hundreds
of Greater Toronto Area Muslim men _ in
polygamous marriages - some with a harem of wives
- were receiving welfare and social benefits for each
of their spouses, thanks to the city and province,
Muslim leaders say.”

“Polygamy is a regular part of life for many
Muslims,” Canadian Society of Muslims president
Mumtaz Ali declared bluntly. “Ontario recognizes
religious marriages for Muslims and others.”
Government officials quickly denied the Muslim
leader’s claims about immigration law and social
benefits regulations. Only one public servant
seemed sufficiently concerned. “This is wrong,”
said city councilor Rob Ford. “They should put a
stop to this immediately.”

Instead, welfare abuse by Muslims appears to
have metastasized across the Western world.
Almost three years later, news stories about radical
Muslims - often immigrants - engaged in social
benefits scams emerge regularly from Europe,
Canada, and Australia. Even when they are not
involved in fraud, Muslims frequently are
overrepresented on welfare rolls, compared with
other communities. The statistics from around the
globe are jaw-dropping, especially in economically
uncertain times.

According to one 2007 source, immigration, of
which Muslims comprise a significant part, “costs
Sweden at least 40-to-50 billion Swedish kroner
[approximately $7 billion] every year... and has
greatly contributed to bringing the Swedish welfare
state to the brink of bankruptcy.” Yet two years
earlier, the country’s finance minister declared
counter-intuitively that “more immigrants should be
allowed into Sweden in order to safeguard the
welfare system.”

One Iranian immigrant to Sweden expressed
astonishment at his new country’s policies: “In
Sweden my family encountered a political system
that seemed very strange. The interpreter told us that
Sweden is a country where the government will put
a check into your mailbox each month if you don’t
work. She explained that there was no reason to get
a job.”

The statistics from Norway are even more
shocking. According to a University of Oslo study,
“non-Western immigrants” are ten times as likely to
be on social assistance as native Norwegians.

In Germany, Muslims are four times as likely to
be receiving welfare as non-Muslims. However,
unlike his counterpart in Sweden, Berlin’s former
finance senator Thilo Sarrazin is speaking out
against the benefits system and has penned a
bestselling book condemning the nation’ s
immigration policies. Sarrazin stated while in office
that welfare recipients could feed themselves on
four euros per day, adding that “losing weight is the
least of their problems.”

Research by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard
from 2002 reveals that mostly Muslim immigrants

in Denmark “constitute 5% of the population but
consume upwards of 40% of the welfare spending.”
In that country, numerous “single”? women who
receive social assistance are really the wives of
polygamous Muslim men.

Polygamy and benefits fraud go hand-in-hand
across the continent. Last year in France, a
polygamous Muslim and father of 17 children was
charged with welfare fraud when authorities
discovered that “two of his companions lived in
Dubai for a year while continuing to receive welfare
benefits worth 10,000 euros.” The man did not
exactly have a low profile, as he made news
previously when one of his wives was fined for
driving while wearing a niqab that restricted her
vision.

In one instance, a former minister in the British
government, which has been known to grant
additional welfare benefits to cover a man’s
additional wives, openly promoted welfare use and
abuse among her Muslim constituents. Last
December, deputy Labour Party leader Harriet
Harman labeled Muslim immigrants who send a
portion of their welfare payments to families back
home “heroic.” She even “called for tax refunds to
encourage more immigrants to follow suit.”

However, ordinary Muslims are not the only ones
exploiting generous Western welfare systems for
personal gain. In 2005, the UK Telegraph reported
that the governor of Pakistan’s Sindh province had
received British state benefits of around £1000 a
month for ten months, plus the rent for a northwest
London house.

Even worse, many well-known Islamic radicals
are on the dole. The irony of the situation is
inescapable: their parasitical behavior obliges
governments, through taxpayers, to subsidize their
adopted country’s own destruction.

For example, one of England’s most notorious
Muslim leaders, hate preacher and Islamic law
proponent Anjem Choudary, has boasted about
receiving £25,000 a year in benefits, explaining that
the money “belongs to Allah.” Membership in
Choudary’s Islam4UK group was criminalized after
he threatened to lead 500 followers on a highly
provocative “anti-war” march, “carrying empty
coffins to mark Muslims ‘mercilessly murdered’ in
Iraq and Afghanistan.” Choudary even paid the £50
fine brought down against Emdadur Choudhury
(no relation) for burning poppies while disrupting
somber Remembrance Day services last year. It was
revealed that Emdadur Choudhury, who has been
dubbed “the designer label extremist” for his taste in
Western clothes, lives in “a free council flat and
[receives] almost £800 a month [in] state handouts.”

Then there is Abdul Rahman Saleem, who once
served prison time for inciting racial hatred during
London riots against the Danish Muhammad
cartoons. He now stands accused of “fiddling the
benefits system by working while claiming
jobseekers’ allowance.” A “friend”-turned-
informant told the Daily Mail: “He likes to say
‘Allah provides’ - but in reality it is the state he
seems to despise so much that makes the provisions
for him. The Child Support Agency claim|[s] there
is nothing they can do to make him pay for his
children because he is in receipt of jobseekers’
allowance.”

Meanwhile, five Muslim men convicted of
harassment for shouting insults during a 2009
homecoming parade for British soldiers nevertheless
went unpunished, declaring that taxpayers would
foot the bill for court costs because they were on
welfare.

Moreover, it was revealed last year that the
council house occupied by the wife and eight
children of England’s most infamous convicted hate

preacher, the hook-handed Abu Hamza, received a
£40,000 “makeover paid for by taxpayers.” His
children are British-born, the Daily Mail reported,
“meaning they are entitled to support from the state,
which would continue even if Hamza is extradited.”
This support has included close to £700 per week in
rent, benefits, and allowances.

Not even revelations that some actual terrorists
collect welfare payments before and after they
commit their crimes have prompted sweeping
reforms of the benefits system.

Two weeks after the 7 July 2005, bombings in
London, four explosions disrupted the city’s public
transportation system once more. (Fortunately, only
one injury was reported.) British authorities
subsequently discovered that the Muslim radicals
involved in the attack had collected more than
£165,000 in benefits, aided by multiple addresses
and national insurance numbers. Two of them
originally won asylum in Britain by using forged
passports and false names.

Abu Qatada, sometimes referred to as “Osama
bin Laden’s ambassador in Europe,” was found
guilty of plotting to plant bombs during millennium
celebrations in Jordan. After his release from prison
in 2008, he was granted £150 a week in “incapacity
benefits” for a bad back - despite later being
photographed wearing a knapsack and carrying
groceries on the anniversary of the July 7" London
bombings. Along with publishing that photo, the
Telegraph revealed that “Qatada’s family is
understood to be claiming around £47,000 a year in
benefits - £500 a week in child benefits for the four
of his five children under 18, £210 for income
support, £150 for incapacity benefit, £45 in council
tax benefit - along with a council home worth
around £800,000.”

Similar situations have occurred in Australia.
When Abdul Nacer Benbrika stood trial on
terrorism charges, it emerged that the illegal
Algerian immigrant and father of seven, who had
been ordered deported three times, “never worked a
day” in 19 years and “has cost us millions” in
welfare payments, “baby bonus” checks, and other
benefits, in the words of one broadcaster.

Furthermore, Australian David Hicks brazenly
declared his plan to go on the dole as soon as he was
released from prison. An unrepentant would-be
“martyr,” Hicks trained with al-Qaeda _ in
Afghanistan and claims to have met Osama bin
Laden twenty times. His father told the Herald Sun
in 2007: “He’s an Australian citizen. He has a right
to that sort of thing.”

One of Norway’s most notorious welfare
recipients is also a convicted terrorist: Mullah
Krekar, who has been linked to bombings in
Madrid and Iraq.

Meanwhile, Canada’s most famous welfare
recipients - Muslim or otherwise - remain the
Khadrs. Confessed war criminal Omar Khadr still
resides in Guantanamo Bay, having pleaded guilty
to killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan in 2002.
However, his extended family members, all of
whom share his radical views, continue to live on
welfare in a Toronto suburb.

Despite the public outrage provoked by the
Toronto Sun in 2008, little evidence suggests that
the situation has improved in Canada. In early
2011, the Mounties charged Ahmad EI-Akhal, a
Québec immigration consultant, with “providing
Canadian citizenship documents to hundreds of
people in the Middle East so they could collect
benefits and tax refunds” to the tune of $500,000.
Adding an original twist on the venerable scam,
none of the individuals receiving benefits actually
lived in Canada. According to the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police, the scheme had been going on
since 1999.

This author contacted the officials originally
quoted in that Toronto Sun report to ask what is
being done about welfare abuse by Muslims. The
office of Rob Ford, who is now Toronto mayor,
never replied to inquiries. Just one individual, a
spokesperson for the Ministry of Community and
Social Services, responded - but only with a
boilerplate email. Rebecca MacKenzie explained
that the ministry is “not able to provide comment on
specific cases due to privacy concerns,” adding that
they “take allegations of fraud very seriously.”

Seriousness is long overdue. As an Islamist
Watch blog post from 2009 put it: “Only one
adjective properly describes a government that funds
those who seek its destruction: suicidal.”

Canadian Government under Israeli Control
Yves Engler
Friday, 23 September 2011

How pro-Israel _ was
government?

It was so pro-Israel that Canada would vote "no"
in the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state
on only half the land that Canadian diplomats
promised Palestine 60 years ago.

It was so pro-Israel that it would support illegal
settlers and the extreme right in blocking this small
step towards righting a historical wrong despite
Canada spending tens of millions of dollars on
training Palestinian police and other “state-building”
measures.

It was so pro-Israel that it would do this despite a
higher percentage of Canadians supporting the
Palestinian’s bid for U.N. membership than voted
Conservative in the last election.

Two and a half months ago [ie. June 2011]
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
criticized the Palestinian statehood bid, labeling it a
“public-relations” exercise. On Friday (ie.
September 23") Harper reiterated this position.
“Canada views the action as very regrettable and we
will be opposing it,” the Prime Minister said.

Canada is one of only a half dozen countries that
has publicly came out against the Palestinian
Authority’s U.N. bid and the Conservatives were
lobbying “like-minded” countries to do the same
(despite the Palestinian Authority sending high-
profile emissary, Hanan Ashrawi, to Ottawa to
blunt such a move). On June 24", the New York
Times reported: “Canada...has been lobbying
smaller countries to tell the Palestinians that they
will not vote with them in September.” Canada has
been spending this country’s diminishing diplomatic
currency trying to cobble together a group of
countries that will vote against the Palestinian
Authority to spare the U.S. and Israel from complete
isolation. Notwithstanding Canadian-Israeli-
American efforts, the Palestinians expected the
backing of more than two-thirds of U.N. member
states — the number needed to override a U.S.
Security Council veto — with 120-to-140 countries
already in favor.

Stephen —_Harper’s

Isolated diplomatically, Harper was also
contradicting the wishes of Canadians. A recent
GlobeScan-BBC poll of 20,446 people in 19
countries found that 46% of Canadians support the
Palestinians statehood bid while only 25% opposed
it. Apparently, there are more Canadians in favor of
the Palestinians than voted for the Conservatives.

Whatever happened at the U.N. assembly in those
coming days it would not bring about a viable
Palestinian state in the near future. A Palestinian
diplomatic victory would not end the blockade of
Gaza, bring down the separation wall or remove the
500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East

Jerusalem (let alone eliminate the institutional
discrimination faced by Palestinian citizens of
Israel).

While U.N. recognition would've improved the
Palestinians ability to pursue Israeli officials through
the International Criminal Court, taking the issue
to the U.N. is a largely symbolic move pursued by a
Palestinian Authority widely discredited for
collaborating with Israel’s occupation. There were
questions about whether the statehood bid would
weaken Palestinian refugees’ (mostly expelled by
Zionist forces in 1948) right of return and some had
criticized the statehood bid for distracting attention
from the growing international boycott, divestment
and sanctions campaign against Israel. For its part,
the winner of the most recent Palestinian election,
Hamas, rejected the “tactical” U.N. bid.

Oddly, on the statehood bid the Conservatives
find themselves in agreement with Hamas, an
organization they’ve worked feverishly — to
undermine since they won Palestinian legislative
elections in 2006. In fact, on this issue the
Conservatives were up against a regime they’d
helped maintain in power (despite the expiration of
President Mahmoud Abbas’ mandate in January
2009). The Harper government spent upwards of
$100 million to build a Palestinian security force to
protect Abbas from his main rival, Hamas. For the
past four years [prior to 2011] Canada had been
heavily invested in training a Palestinian security
force designed “to ensure that the P.A. [Palestinian
Authority] maintained control of the West Bank
against Hamas,” as Canadian ambassador to Israel
Jon Allen was quoted as saying by the Canadian
Jewish News. Trained by Canada, Britain and the
U.S. all the Palestinian security recruits are vetted
by Israel’s internal intelligence agency, the Shin-
Bet. (“We don’t provide anything to the
Palestinians,” noted former U.S. mission head
General Keith Dayton, “unless it has been
thoroughly coordinated with the state of Israel and
they agree to it”). Abbas used this Canadian trained
and funded force to pursue his political adversaries
in the West Bank.

The Harper government had chose to line up
against domestic opinion, most of the world and
their Palestinian allies on recognizing a Palestinian
state half the size of the one Canadian diplomats
endorsed 60 years ago. When Britain turned its
control over Palestine to the U.N. after World War
II, Canadian officials played an important role in the
move to divide the territory into Jewish and
Palestinian states. Some considered Canada’s
representative on the United Nations Special
Committee on Palestine, Supreme Court Justice
Ivan C. Rand, the lead author of the majority report
in support of partitioning the area into ethnically
segregated states. Additionally, External Affairs
Undersecretary Lester Pearson pushed partition in
two different U.N. committees dealing with the
issue.

Today [i.e. 2011] the Palestinian Authority was
pursuing a state on 22% of their historic homeland.
even though the Jewish population owned less than
7% of the population.

It was so pro-Israel that it would support illegal
settlers and the extreme right in blocking this small
step towards righting a historical wrong despite
Canada spending tens of millions of dollars on
training Palestinian police and other “state-building”
measures.

The least we can ask of our government is to
support this move. the territory. Canadian diplomats
pushed a plan that gave the Zionist state 55% of
Palestine

It was so pro-Israel that it would do this despite a
higher percentage of Canadians supporting the

Palestinian’s bid for U.N. membership

Despite making up only a third of the population,
under the U.N. partition plan Jews received most of
land. The Palestinian state was supposed to be on
the remaining 45% of the territory (Israel grabbed
24% more land during the 1948 war).

than voted Conservative in the last election.

Two and a half months ago [ie. June 2011]
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird
criticized the Palestinian statehood bid, labeling it a
“public-relations” exercise. On Friday (ie.
September 23") Harper reiterated this position.
“Canada views the action as very regrettable and we
will be opposing it,” the Prime Minister said.

Canada is one of only a half dozen countries that
has publicly came out against the Palestinian
Authority’s U.N. bid and the Conservatives were
lobbying “like-minded” countries to do the same
(despite the Palestinian Authority sending high-
profile emissary, Hanan Ashrawi, to Ottawa to
blunt such a move). On June 24", the New York
Times reported: “Canada...has been lobbying
smaller countries to tell the Palestinians that they
will not vote with them in September.” Canada has
been spending this country’s diminishing diplomatic
currency trying to cobble together a group of
countries that will vote against the Palestinian
Authority to spare the U.S. and Israel from complete
isolation. Notwithstanding Canadian-Israeli-
American efforts, the Palestinians expected the
backing of more than two-thirds of U.N. member
states — the number needed to override a U.S.
Security Council veto — with 120-to-140 countries
already in favor.

Isolated diplomatically, Harper was _ also
contradicting the wishes of Canadians. A recent
GlobeScan-BBC poll of 20,446 people in 19
countries found that 46% of Canadians support the
Palestinians statehood bid while only 25% opposed
it. Apparently, there are more Canadians in favor of
the Palestinians than voted for the Conservatives.

Whatever happened at the U.N. assembly in those
coming days it would not bring about a viable
Palestinian state in the near future. A Palestinian
diplomatic victory would not end the blockade of
Gaza, bring down the separation wall or remove the
500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem (let alone eliminate the institutional
discrimination faced by Palestinian citizens of
Israel).

While U.N. recognition would've improved the
Palestinians ability to pursue Israeli officials through
the International Criminal Court, taking the issue
to the U.N. is a largely symbolic move pursued by a
Palestinian Authority widely discredited for
collaborating with Israel’s occupation. There were
questions about whether the statehood bid would
weaken Palestinian refugees’ (mostly expelled by
Zionist forces in 1948) right of return and some had
criticized the statehood bid for distracting attention
from the growing international boycott, divestment

Palestinian Loss of Land 1947 to Prosent

ISRAEL

Parlition
Pian, 1947

and sanctions campaign against Israel. For its part,
the winner of the most recent Palestinian election,
Hamas, rejected the “tactical” U.N. bid.

Oddly, on the statehood bid the Conservatives
find themselves in agreement with Hamas, an
organization they’ve worked feverishly to
undermine since they won Palestinian legislative
elections in 2006. In fact, on this issue the
Conservatives were up against a regime they’d
helped maintain in power (despite the expiration of
President Mahmoud Abbas’ mandate in January
2009). The Harper government spent upwards of
$100 million to build a Palestinian security force to
protect Abbas from his main rival, Hamas. For the
past four years [prior to 2011] Canada had been
heavily invested in training a Palestinian security
force designed “to ensure that the P.A. [Palestinian
Authority] maintained control of the West Bank
against Hamas,” as Canadian ambassador to Israel
Jon Allen was quoted as saying by the Canadian
Jewish News. Trained by Canada, Britain and the
U.S. all the Palestinian security recruits are vetted
by Israel’s internal intelligence agency, the Shin-
Bet. (“We don’t provide anything to the
Palestinians,” noted former U.S. mission head
General Keith Dayton, “unless it has been
thoroughly coordinated with the state of Israel and
they agree to it”). Abbas used this Canadian trained
and funded force to pursue his political adversaries
in the West Bank.

The Harper government had chose to line up
against domestic opinion, most of the world and
their Palestinian allies on recognizing a Palestinian
state half the size of the one Canadian diplomats
endorsed 60 years ago. When Britain turned its
control over Palestine to the U.N. after World War
II, Canadian officials played an important role in the
move to divide the territory into Jewish and
Palestinian states. Some considered Canada’s
representative on the United Nations Special
Committee on Palestine, Supreme Court Justice
Ivan C. Rand, the lead author of the majority report
in support of partitioning the area into ethnically
segregated states. Additionally, External Affairs
Undersecretary Lester Pearson pushed partition in
two different U.N. committees dealing with the
issue.

Despite making up only a third of the population,
under the U.N. partition plan Jews received most of
the territory. Canadian diplomats pushed a plan that
gave the Zionist state 55% of Palestine even though
the Jewish population owned less than 7% of the
land. The Palestinian state was supposed to be on
the remaining 45% of the territory (Israel grabbed
24% more land during the 1948 war).

Today [i.e. 2011] the Palestinian Authority was
pursuing a state on 22% of their historic homeland.
The least we can ask of our government is to support
this move.

Pictured Below:
x $tephen Bronfman & Turdeau