If It Waddles Like A Duck And Quacks Like A Duck And Looks Like A Duck, It Is Safe To Believe That It Is A Duck

No matter their race, religion, or  culture most people understand that, 'if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is safe to believe that it is a duck'

No matter their race, religion, or culture most people understand that, ‘if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is safe to believe that it is a duck’

 No matter their race, religion, or  culture most people understand that, ‘if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is safe to believe that it is a duck’; that is everyone except the mostly 90% ‘white real Canadian’ reporters and analysts that work for or get hired as independent guest political analysts for the CBC News Network.  Whether it be the National, CBC  News Now, or Power & Politics, it has become all to clear to me that the 90% believe that a politician should not be labelled a racist, because he/she publicly expressed racist sentiments in an interview, or while addressing his/her party faithful. In their opinion a politician:

  1.  who slips up and says something uncharacteristically racist in public is not necessarily a racist. This 90% is guilty of giving the impression that a politician who gives an apology made on twitter for example squares things and somehow clears the politician of being a closet racist, finally exposed. I am offended by the constant assertions of these learned people that the exposed politician is just a frustrated well-meaning ‘real Canadian’ who said something foolish in the heat of anger and should be forgiven for using the wrong words even though he/she still feels that his racist ideology is correct.
  2. who embraces and encourages the racist views of his constituents, out of some sense of real or imagined  fear that they and he might have about Canada losing its European cultural identity because of an influx of certain foreign immigrants, such as Muslims for political gain, does not necessarily make a politician a racist; perhaps just a well-meaning patriot trying to remain in power where he/she can do great things for ‘real Canadians’.
  3.  who is supportive of racist laws and policies that their party leader, or colleagues put forward, because he/she is just playing the political game the way it has always been played and always will.
  4. who has had a personal, or professional relationship with a reporter, or political analyst in the past who is willing to vouch for the politician’s character could not possibly be a racist, because they would have seen it.

This is not true when it comes to Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. No matter what the topic, the truth in what he is saying becomes irrelevant to the 90%, because of what appears to be an obvious personal dislike and lack of respect for the man, that I cannot   quite figure out, but seems based in how young he is, how much money he has in his trust fund and that he does not conform to their idea of todays politician.  All these people would protect  politicians guilty of making racist statements and compel voters to see the past good in them, but would accuse Justin Trudeau of going too far when he said,

  • “People can dislike the niqab and refer to it as a symbol of oppression. This is a free country. Those are your rights. But those who would use the state’s power to restrict women’s religious freedom and freedom of expression indulge the very same repressive impulse that they profess to condemn.”  “It is a cruel joke to claim you are liberating people from oppression by dictating in law what they can and cannot choose to wear.”
  • “What we cannot ever do is blur the line between a real security threat and simple prejudice, as this government has done. I believe they have done it deliberately, and I believe what they have done is deeply wrong.”
  • “Fear is a dangerous thing. Once it is sanctioned by the state, there is no telling where it might lead. It is always a short path to walk from being suspicious of our fellow citizens to taking actions to restrict their liberty.”

Justin Trudeau cannot even make the real, truthful and shameful link between the mistreatment of  Jewish people, Chinese people, Southern Asian people and Black people who tried to immigrate to Canada and failed and those who succeeded with what is happening to the way Muslims both trying to immigrate to Canada and those who have succeeded are treated by this government without certain people in the CBC News Network accusing him of stirring up the racist sentiments.

What does it say about the what the host of television news programs and guest political analysts tell millions of  Canadians every night watching their programs that they think that comments like the one found directly below are simply bad choices in word use by an over zealous politician that means well  and not really germane to the real discussion of racism in this country?

  • “It makes no sense to pay ‘whities’ to stay home while companies bring in ‘brown people’ as temporary foreign workers.” This is statement which was made by the Conservative Party of Canada MP for New Brunswick,  John Williamson and discussed on a CBC News Network show where every panelist said that tis politician was not a racist. I would ask all of these panelists on all of these news shows, “What does it take these days in Canada for a statement, an action to be considered as racist according to them?”

It would be laughable to me that these highly educated reporters and analysts cannot see that they themselves are reporting the news in a bias racist manner, but racism  for any reason is just not funny and should be taken seriously, whether it is intentional or not.  Day after day listening to their commentary it has become clear  that I am no longer just watching the news on CBC, but that I am being bombarded with the opinion of the news as seen  through the eyes of  people who consider themselves ‘real Canadians’;  90% of which are White male/female, Christians of European ancestry), who feel it is their duty to convert people to their way of thinking rather than to just report the facts of the news and let every Canadian decide for themselves what side of an issue they want to be on. The shows and the news personalities that I mention in this post are not the only shows and personalities that I think  are guilty of racial bias and slanted reporting, but they are in my opinion among the worst offenders when it  comes to discussing, or reporting on anything that involves Muslim religious, cultural rights and freedoms in Canada; especially where a Muslim woman’s rights to dress how she sees fit, when and where she wishes to is on the table.

In my opinion Tasha Kheiriddin is a conservative public policy analyst/commentator who  clearly has a problem with Muslims and Muslim women enjoying the same rights and freedoms that she enjoys most noticeably when it comes to religion and dress. I think that Tasha Kheiriddin  puts a face on the racist in todays Canada.  Todays Canadian racists may not wear the “regalia” of the KKK, but they wear their sense of patriotism much like a white robe, coned hat and veil; hoping that all of their flag waving will hide their intolerance, their sense of superiority, and their sense of entitlement.

 I have heard Tasha Kheiridden repeatedly voice on CBC News Network that she finds Muslim women who wear the niqab offensive and that it should offend all Canadians, because she feels that wearing a niqab is not in keeping with Canadian values.  The last time I heard her say it was on March 14th 2015 on CBC News Network.  Would Tasha really feel more accepting of  Muslim women and feel less intimidated and fearful if they stopped wearing the niqab, or would she then require of them to  convert to anything other religion than Islam and make themselves look as close to what Tasha thinks all Canadian women should look like (herself)?    When Tasha  says the things she does in public is she guilty of:

  1. promoting hateful racist commentary directed at a specific racial and religious minority?
  2. really saying softly what veteran Conservative Party of Canada MP Larry Miller has said harshly and crudely when he said, “Frankly, if you’re not willing to show your face in a ceremony that you’re joining the best country in the world, then frankly, if you don’t like that or don’t want to do that, stay the hell where you came from, and I think most Canadians feel the same.” I think so.

Why do people like Tasha Kheiriddin, Jonathan Kay, and Jay Gerson get in front of the camera and pretend that the European way of life, (culture, religion and value system) was what the first explorers and colonist  found when they landed on what is now the shores of Canada? I ask this because they are constantly using this imaginary threat of Canada losing its European flavor as an excuse for promoting and the tolerating of racism by  insinuating that somehow the European culture is indeed in danger of becoming extinct in Canada and  needs to be protected and preserved  above all others in Canada and around the world by whatever means are necessary?

I get the feeling that  people like Tasha, Jonathan and Jay feel somehow they need not feel guilty, or take any responsibility for their part in contributing to the support of those who still believe in the  same values, traditions, racist beliefs and bad practices of Canada’s past, that made:

  1. residential schooling possible.
  2. the bulldozing of Africville possible.
  3. the internment of Japanese Canadians in concentration camps in Canada possible.
  4.  the racist mistreatment of  Jewish people, Chinese people, Southern Asian people and Black people who tried to immigrate to Canada possible.

The European colonists and Canada’s founding fathers are not all that different from the government the governs this country right now. For instance this government and our founding fathers:

  1. looked/look at non-Europeans as  inferior to those of European ancestry and heritage in every way.
  2. felt/feel that there is nothing wrong with using immigrants as a source of cheap labor while needed and after their usefulness is over to force them to leave the country.
  3. felt/feel that it is okay to alter the Canadian Immigration process  through racist laws to deny access into Canada of any race of people they feel for whatever reason could cause the European flavor of this country to be altered.

Why should a Muslim in todays Canada have to worry about being attacked when in public by Canadians of European ancestry, because these Canadians:

  1. do not like the way their accent sounds?
  2. do not like the color of their skin?
  3. do not like their religion, or its practices and dress?
  4. do not like the smell of the food they eat?
  5. want to take away what belongs to them in terms of rights and freedoms and they refuse to give it up?

I believe that it is people like CBC’s analysts Tasha, Jonathan and Jay, politicians like Conservative Party of Canada  John Williamson for New Brunswick and Larry Miller for Grey-Owen Sound and the prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper that should feel guilty for every Muslim woman who is harassed and feels threatened when she goes out in public, because they are all guilty of creating, or supporting an environment in which racist ideals, laws, language and actions flourish.

Prime Minister Harper and his officials are in my opinion guilty of continually stoking the embers of fear and prejudice found in all Canadians which have been heightened by the ever-increasing violence in the world today against innocent civilians all over the world and recently in Canada. Stephen Harper is personally guilty of endangering the lives of innocent Muslims all over Canada by drawing a link between radicalization and mosques, like when he said,  “It doesn’t matter what the age of the person is, or whether they’re in a basement, or whether they’re in a mosque or somewhere else.”

In closing I would ask these questions:

  • How many racist statements does a politician make before he/she can be identified as a racist?
  • How many known racists can be found in political party and not be booted out of caucus, before the  political party in question can be identified as a racist party?
  • How many times can a reporter, analyst defend racist behavior as patriotic before they can be identified as a racist?
  • How many times can a network continue to provide a platform for racists before they can be identified as a racist network?

About archemdis

I try to say what is on my mind and not hurt others, but some things need to be said whether they hurt or not and I do just that. I try to listen as well as talk, but my opinion is just that mine. You need not take it as your own, just respect the fact that I am entitled to it, as you are yours. I do read all comments, but will only answer, or allow to be displayed those which adress me by name, refer to the post by name in the comment, or that have been sent through the proper channels. In this manner I can tell whether the comment was meant for me and that it is not just spam.
This entry was posted in Canada, Government, Prejudice, Racism, stereotyping and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.