Canadians Do Not Want Charles As King

 

Today, a copy of the CBC “Morning Brief” appeared in my eMail describing a new woke survey published by Reuters (Dan Kitwood).  This did not surprise me because, if one searches well enough, a poll may be discovered somewhere indicating a “truth” fitting any narrative  —  but I was somewhat annoyed that Reuters did not choose to value my, or any of my associates, opinion on the matter (“Opinion” only).  

After all, the King of England is, firstly, the choice of English people (More later) and other countries of the Commonwealth however, choose to accept his position as they wish (Technically, not accurate, but you know what I mean).  My point here is that Canadians are, or should be, not part of the decision-making process.  

The title of this article states that 60% of Canadians do not recognize the King while,  a few paragraphs later, they become simply respondents.  

I have written before on the controversial question actually defining a Canadian, and the simple answer is someone qualified to carry a Canadian passport, i.e., not random respondents (Contrary to the whim of our current P.M.).  

Therefore, unlike countries of Communist dictators, and the probability that the banana-republic Canada will become controlled by the CCP … we still have a King, thus immigrants, both legal and illegal, and refugees, real or not, should sit quietly in their government-subsidized apartments … until, if necessary, deported.    

Past readers of Bernie's Blazar will be aware of my deliberately controversial tone, in order to cause discussion … I look forward to the spore. 

International Spies

Vague Rules of Law

From police states to liberal democracies, there are laws from governing immigration to home security and human rights that are well known, ignored, or quite vague.  Today, the point is being made that immigration is out of control, due to laws being ignored by foreign populations assuming their ignorant rights to cross international borders, and governments colluding with these people for political gain based on a fear that human rights could be ignored.

This begs the question;  Whose rights are more important, the citizen whose livelihood is being eroded  by uncontrolled immigration, or the immigrants who seek economic assistance to better their lives.  Today, a UK media story details government pensions to senior citizens being approximately 60% of social payments being given to so-called (officially undefined status) refugees.

There is another, related, example of vague laws;  international spies.  China has been arresting foreigners for years, usually for political reasons, but China is not alone in this matter, in fact, many countries play a game of ‘tit for tat’ with each other.  These actions become problematical when rules of law become so vague that when statements are made, for example, authorities in Beijing giving only vague details about detentions, saying that someone was "suspected of engaging in activities endangering national security" while insisting any arrests were lawful.  The present situation (The arrest and detention of two Canadians in apparent retaliation for Canada’s arrest of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou, resulting from a request from the United States for her extradition to face charges of fraud and violating international sanctions against Iran) needs expert clarification. 

Left unsaid are the many examples of arrested foreigners who, apparently, were ‘endangering national security’, and still remain, usually, unidentified.

Personally, having lived and worked in China, I am very aware of the vague regulations (based on laws) that may trap foreigners into difficult positions.  For example, foreigners over the age of 65 are not permitted to work in government institutions, i.e., universities.  Knowing this, as a young 65-year old, I left feeling annoyed.  There are other foreign teachers who stay, in collusion with the universities, who would eventually be arrested, deported, and banned from future visa issue.  This would be followed by useless TV interviews … and life goes on.  This applies equally to younger ex-pats who may be seen lounging outside various bars every evening, feeling quite nonchalant about their long-expired visas.

The moral of this comment is;  resist arrogant thought that regulations in other countries should not apply to foreigners … if you go around with your eyes closed, you will soon trip up.

Immigration Poll

Recently, I introduced a Poll into this Blog (Bernie’s Greek Poll - July, 2015).  It developed very little interest, perhaps because most people are nationalists and considered Greece, wrongly, as insignificant.

Perhaps, as a Poll, I presented it to produce comments as answers, instead of check boxes.

Please excuse my persistence as I present another.  This time, about the really important, and controversial, subject of asylum seekers.

The world, that’s you and I, contribute trillions of dollars annually to the problem of asylum seekers, either nationally or by way of the UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees).

Recently, a serious suggestion has been presented that a new UN State be created to which all asylum seekers be sent (Australia has already created a germ of the idea).  There are hundreds of uninhabited islands globally for which this idea could be established if the trillions of dollars were directed to it.

The new state would be developed with temporary homes, schools, workplaces, etc., and immigration representatives from various countries would evaluate and select the real refugees from the illegal economic asylum seekers.

Once, developed, all countries could ban or deport the asylum seekers unless they had been registered by the UNHCR within the new state. 

Do you believe this to be a suitable answer to the immigration problem (I should welcome either a comment or just an anonymous check (Yes, No or Maybe).  Please note;  Your vote will be counted within the app. but, for some weird reason it will not be visible on this page.  I shall reveal the numbers at a later date.

	Yes
	No
	Maybe

   Show results

Votes so far: 0
Days left to vote: 372 

Immigration 2 - A New Country For Refugees

Today, I listened, on CBC Radio, to a discussion about the possibility of creating a new country solely for refugees, and thought that this would be perfect for my stated “intention to develop this blog to facilitate communication ... and discuss almost any subject ....”  For example;  Should we create a new country solely for refugees (Mentioned twice for affect)?

This week, according to French police, another man has been killed trying to enter the Channel Tunnel to get to England.  Hundreds of attempts to enter the UK, by this method, are made each day, say the tunnel operators.

Almost 2,000 people are believed to have died crossing the Mediterranean to reach Europe this year and, it is estimated that, there are 60 million displaced people throughout the world.

Now, a controversial plan has been developed, by a real estate developer, to solve, at least help to solve, the problem, by creating a “Refugee Nation” (A brand-new country for the world’s refugees).  Critics are concerned that it could become a type of prison camp ... are you?

Please comment here.

Politics 10 - Thin Edge of the Wedge

The U.K., the place of my birth but, now, a place that is almost unrecognizable in certain areas.  The County of Kent, where I grew up, known as The Garden of England, feels different, as if there is a pulsing undercurrent of unrest.  My loved Thomas Hardy County of Dorset, pictured on Christmas cards (Remember those?), breathes the fresh air with innocence of an uncertain future.  London, of course, has always been a multicultural city, since being established by the Romans, and where it was usually difficult to distinguish one culture from another but, now, there is an obvious ‘frontal attack’ by an increasingly dominant, and vociferous, Islamic community ... and the government appears to lack any authority for which to display the necessary control.

My Peaceful English Country House

Most English villages developed around small farming groups.  Produce marketing established the eventual village shop;  A religious need built a church;  eventually, a sense of community introduced the Public House (Pub).  Over the years, there were more shops, churches and, certainly, more pubs, as towns and cities were born (Please excuse the simplification).

Today, Christian churches are closing, and Islamic domes are constructed above their roofs.  Many shops are boarded up because of changing customer needs and, in their place, some are reopening with signs written solely in Islamic script (The Quebec language police would have a heyday with that).  The need for social community takes place in the mosque (although the ‘need’ for some Muslims is doubtful), and, thus, the once-popular pub has closed, and dereliction has taken over ... a probable breeding ground for extremists.

No, this is not Dhaka, Bangladesh, but London, U.K., 2013

A good friend of mine who made a more extensive tour of the U.K. recently, wrote to say that he was forced to double-check his air tickets because he felt sure that he had landed in Pakistan by mistake.  He wasn’t exaggerating. 

One is bound to ask, why do Muslims emigrate to a country that sells world-famous pork sausages, tasteful ale, and listens to glorious choirs singing in cathedrals every Sunday.?  If I had wished to become an Australian, I would have gone to Australia, but I admired the Canadian way of life and came to Canada.  Is this new wave of immigration the result of Muslims wishing to become British because they admire the British way of life?  It seems such an alarmingly sad question when they carry banners saying, “Kill the Queen” and “Sharia law for everyone”.

I think this to be a very important question for a country like Canada which believes, wrongly, in a policy of multiculturalism.  In 2012, 257,515 immigrants and 23,056 refugees came to Canada, and the Minister for Immigration states that these numbers are planned to continue in the future.  It may be too late for the U.K. (and France), but it could be a warning for us. 

The U.K. and Canada (and other similar countries) occasionally make changes to their respective list of “safe” countries, (Countries from which refugees are no longer accepted).  It occurs to me that refugees from these countries who have enjoyed the safety, and benefits from our welfare systems, could be deported back ... certainly, if they have not proven to be productive members of our society (I have written elsewhere about the huge number of criminal immigrants in our over-crowded goals).

I see it as the thin edge of the wedge, that requires a sensible strengthening of immigration and deportation laws.

As a Postscript, my attention is focussed on our indigenous communities.  They are Canadians too, yet we segregate them to wilderness reserves.  I am tempted to suggest that we set up reserves for refugees too, after all, Australia does it.  Remember, qualified immigrants come here after a long intensive scrutiny to integrate and become tax-paying, employed Canadians, whilst refugees come to simply escape politically and culturally unsafe countries.  I imagine that when the word travels globally that refugees in Canada no longer live in highly subsidized, high-rise apartments, etc. (usually, better than low-income Canadians) there would be an remarkable reduction in refugee numbers ... simply because some of them are not refugees, but ‘queue-jumpers’.

Now, we shall discover if controversy creates discussion, anonymously or otherwise.   

Your comment is welcome by clicking below