Posted on November 18, 2011

Europe Can Learn from Canadian Diversity, Blair Says

Emily Jackson, The Star, November 17, 2011

The Occupy movement must strike a balance between personal and public rights, says former British prime minister Tony Blair.

“These people have got a perfect right to protest, but in the end you’ve got to protect public spaces as well,” Blair told reporters Thursday after a University of Toronto panel discussion on multi-faith interactions.

Canada’s support of diversity makes it a “model” for embracing different cultures and religions, Blair said to a group of students, teachers and faith-based organizations.

Since leaving office in 2007, Blair has promoted the peaceful coexistence of different religions in an increasingly globalized world.

Europe has a thing or two to learn from Canada when it comes to embracing religious diversity, he said.

Regardless of whether it’s seen as a threat or opportunity, globalization has pushed people of different backgrounds together, Blair said.

Europeans are “fracturing and splintering” in trying times, he said.

There’s a “disconcerting” dislike of religious minorities in Europe, he said, due to the economy and the election of far-right political parties “designed to divide people.”

He pointed to Sweden as an example, and noted that Switzerland has banned minarets on mosques.

“We have to be really careful of doing something which ends up in a situation where we make religious minorities feel that they are being marginalized,” Blair said.

People often worry when they don’t understand something, such as the debate over women wearing burqas in France, he said.

Public religious activities, such as daytime prayers in Toronto public schools, can make people feel like the common space is being challenged, Blair said.

Not only are there tensions between different faiths, but there is also an “aggressive secularism” that can prevent people from seeing the positive aspects of religion, Blair said.

“We need to advocate faith in a way that is not threatening to others,” he said.

The Tony Blair Faith Foundation, an organization that advocates understanding between major religions and promotes the positive role of religion, supports six fellowships in Toronto.

37 responses to “Europe Can Learn from Canadian Diversity, Blair Says”

  1. highduke says:

    Canada was founded in 1867 and didn’t gain full independence until after WW1. A country that young divided into English & French zones and multiple Christian sects with its centennial coinciding with the social upheaval caused by the death of most of its great men in two world wars is bound to end up a social engineering experiment but it won’t work in continental Europe where there is more cohesion.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Canada is no model of multiculturalism.

    Almost all non-white immigrants live in the largest urban areas. Only by massively subsidizing immigrants with social spending does Canada mask the failures of its urban ghettos.

    Outside in the suburbs, the wealthier migrants live secluded lives either in all-ethnic enclaves, or in mixed neighborhoods where people seldom interact with each other or speak a common language.

    Canada has a compliant mainstream media which serves to sugar-coat immigration and dismiss its skeptics.

    An economic downturn is all it would take to blow the lid off.

  3. white is right, black is whack says:

    Yes, white Canadians, do learn from Europe’s diversity…and how it has ruined and degenerated the historic white culture there.

  4. Anonymous says:

    So what does Blair, destroyer of England, have to say on the subject of the decades-old Quebec secession movement?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Please read the following quote from Tony Blair in found in Foreign Affairs, January/February 2007.

    “To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.

    Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture. The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones.”

    Obviously, anyone even remotely familiar with the Koran knows he’s full of it. The Koran reads like an Arabic “Mein Kampf”, but worse. What was Tony Blair reading then? Certainly not the Koran. Perhaps a very biased and highly selective Western “Islam for Dummies” or something along those lines. Or perhaps he’s just outright lying consistent with the Islamic doctrine of “Taqiyya”. So is Blair really a Muslim who didn’t bother to release a memo about his conversion? Seems like it to me.

    Interesting fact: Blair’s lily-white, sister-in-law, Lauren Booth converted to Islam last year. Hmmmm

    Blair has reeked of capitulation to Islamic supremacy for a long time. He’s a perfect example of the delusional, rich, white liberal elite that peddles multiculturalist policy while being rich enough to isolate themselves from the resulting carnage.

    “Islam is the religion of peace!” they cry, from behind the gates of their gated communities, from behind sheets of bullet proof glass.

    Not real convincing if you ask me. When people like Tony Blair say “Hurray for multiculturalism!” He’s the last person on earth I’d say was qualified to lecture the rest of us about it.

  6. Matt says:

    I’m a white Canadian, and I can assure you that though the Canadian politicians all claim to love multiculturalism, hardly anybody at the ground level truly does. Granted, there are no race wars per se, but regardless, non-whites and whites do not generally mix any better than in America or Britain.

  7. Anonymous says:

    To show they are open to all viewpoints, and are not politically biased or a secret organ of the state, the paper should run, say, Jared Taylor’s ‘Banned in Halifax’ speech. He had quite a few things to say about diversity in Canada. Perhaps the two articles should run side to side. Even Blair says it’s important we ‘understand things’. Something that can only be done, as Thomas Jefferson has claimed, by an open examination of all sides of an issue. Mr. Blair may say he’s for tolerance but but he’s really in favor of it’s opposite. By his own statements here, anyone who doesn’t agree with him should more than shut up.

  8. FtR says:

    Diversity is a nice sounding word for the replacement of white people with non-whites. Diversity is a code word for the ethnic cleansing of white people. Diversity is a form of anti-white genocide. Anyone who supports diversity supports genocide.

    People such as Tony Blair support the genocide of white people.

  9. AO says:


    Canada is only multicultural in the sense that we have British English speaking Canada, French speaking Canada, and the first nations.

    Even with those few groups (two of which are white) we have had trouble getting along. The flooding of our major cities with non-whites is not going to create a multicultural wonderland as some would claim. When we are no longer allowed to live comfortably enough to ignore the situation the country will fracture further.

    The same is true for Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S.A.

    There is a reason why there are so many different countries in the world and why ethnic wars are never ending. The idea that we can somehow create a unified country which resembles the U.N. and that this is desirable can only come from people who are immensely arrogant and utterly ignorant of human nature.

  10. WR the elder says:

    Canada kept a lid on the problems caused by diversity by passing “hate speech” laws that make it illegal to say politically incorrect things. You can have liberty or you can have diversity, but you can’t have both.

  11. Anonymous says:

    The main reason Canada has less problems with immigration than the UK is that most of the immigrants to Canada are not Muslim or African. They are from China or India. What Muslims and Africans we do have cause LOTS of problems.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Take a look at the Toronto police website at the most wanted list.

    Third worlders!

    Canada is on a quick road to all the problems that come from diversity. It is just a matter of time, not if.

  13. Anonymous says:

    #10 wrote: Canada kept a lid on the problems caused by diversity by passing “hate speech” laws that make it illegal to say politically incorrect things.

    —Prosecutions under the hate-speech laws are not frequent and not always successful. On the other hand, they’re almost superfluous, since the Canadian elites enforce a rigid political correctness in any case, leaving people fearing job loss or (at a minimum) social isolation if they don’t parrot the multiculturalist line. In private conversations between people who trust each other, you hear a lot of resentment against the prevailing order. But once they’ve finished venting their frustration in private, they return to their well-established pattern of sullen compliance in public.

  14. François says:

    @ Anonymous (4):

    «So what does Blair, destroyer of England, have to say on the subject of the decades-old Quebec secession movement?»

    To be honest, we, the Quebecker separatists, wouldn’t care to learn what a vile traitor to his own people such as Tony Blair have to say about our «movement», as you say.

    The only reason why Pierre Elliot Trudeau, a former Canadian prime minister (and a Quebecker who chose to side with the Anglo-Canadians) put the idea of multiculturalism in the 1982 constitution, was because Canada has been trying to make our culture disappear, but failed. So Trudeau and his bunch came up with the idea of a multicultural Canada, our culture and Anglo-Canadian culture becoming no more official than say, Pakistani culture.

    The way in which Canadians try to keep us from one day having our own country, is to end up scuttling theirs. Poor fools, their hate for us actually is destroying them!

  15. HH says:

    What is with Blair anyway? What manner of man is THIS dedicated to the peddling of all things non-White with such unbridled enthusiasm? This clown could give the average “anti-fa” loony a run for their money in the white-hate dept!

  16. Kenelm Digby says:

    There is only one reason why Canada hasn’t yet experienced significant racial tension – it just hasn’t gone on long enough for the battle-lines to be drawn.

    The Canadian political class has endorsed uncontrolled immigration to a fearful degree. The sheer speed of the transformation has blindsided Canadians.We are only at the beginning yet.

  17. Reg says:

    “globalization has pushed people of different backgrounds together”

    What the hell is he talking about. HE has pushed people of different backgrounds together into our country (the UK).

    If you had to just say one name when asked who destroyed the UK then Tony Blair is the name. Among nationalists now and the wider indigenous people of the UK in the future Tony Blair is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler for Jews. That coupled with his arrogant righteousness will ensure this odious little, small minded man will never be forgotten.

  18. tjspoker2 says:

    Aside from major urban centers most Canadians don’t have the day to day pleasure of experiencing the wonders of multiculturalism first hand. All one has to do is watch the Toronto news and you can get a first hand glimpse of how they enrich us. The gross majority of the crime reporting stars these new Canadians, take a look at the Toronto Police Department’s most wanted list it looks like it’s from some African nation.

  19. Sylvie says:

    Are the majority of people so brianless insofar as they acually believe what this anti-person preaches?

    I’d say the reason for this lack-of-a-man’s enthusiasm for multiculturalism and all if its’ associated ills that everyone must accept without question, is as simple as this: he (and his ilk) has a stake in it. Giving talks to organisations and making appearances here and there fattens his already well-fed bank account. Sinvelling greedy coward.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Reply to Francois:

    You have it all wrong sir. First many Anglo-Canadians (myself included) would like nothing more then for Quebec to separate. Quebec is far more trouble then it is worth. That the global floodgates of immigration were opened in Canada is entirerly due to Pierre Trudeau and the federal liberal party. They were both overwhelmingly supported by French-Canadians. And Trudeau himself is a Francophone Quebecker. Look at all the elections in Canada prior to the 1990’s. Quebec completely supported the liberal party. During the period 1968-84 (King Trudeau’s reign) Quebec backed him 100%. Trudeau and the liberals would never have attained, let alone kept, political power without Quebec. In their best election ever, the liberals only managed 35% of the vote OUTSIDE QUEBEC. Look at the 1972 election. English Canada completely rejected Trudeau. Only the Quebec French tribal vote saved him. It was because of Quebec we got Trudeau. It was because of Trudeau, Canada (meaning ENGLISH CANADA) got massive waves of non-white immigration. But Quebec was very foolish indeed. It cut off its nose to spite Canada’s face. In 1966 there were 264 seats in the Canadian house of commons and Quebec had 74 of them (28%) Now the commons will have 338 seats and Quebec has 78 of them (23%). To have its 1966 proportion, (universal immigration was introduced in 1967) Quebec should have 95 seats. Quebec has been marginialized by population growth and doesn’t dominate Canadian politics anymore. What has caused all this population growth? Non-white, third world immigration to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. This explosive immigrant-driven population increase has undermined Quebec’s position in Canada. And Quebec voted for the very man and party that made it all possible. Yes, English Canada has been diluted, but it hasn’t helped Quebec. Chinese in Vancouver and Pakistanis in Brampton are not going to speak French. French-Canadians have turned themseleves into just another ethnic group.

  21. Englishman says:

    Blair has an unbelievably shallow knowledge of history. He has been caught lying/fantasising about his own past on several occasions. It is doubtful if he has ever read his “bedside Koran” in full or carefully, probably just some doctored precis. From his early days as a lawyer until his recent Middle Eastern “job” he has been closely associated with various pro-Israeli people, and profited from wealthy connections, so that any informed sympathy for Islam or Arabs is likely to be as dubious as his activities in other respects. A nevertheless bizarre “convert” to his wife’s nominal Catholicism, he is just a vaguely well-meaning but superficial sort of lefty Christian ecumaniac, if anything. Basically, he has always been an actor, the whole world (sadly) his stage. He has a swanky trendy show-off limousine-liberal resemblance to Canada’s Trudeau and Australia’s Keating. Phony Tony.

  22. Fred from France says:

    Before Canada, I would like Tony Blair to give his opinion on the future referendum on Scottish independence. Diversity does not seem to work too well in the United(?) Kingdom either.

  23. Anonymous says:

    As poster #20 shows, Quebec has painted itself into a corner. If it lets in a lot of immigrants, its French culture, character, language, heritage and civilization is diminished. If it lets in only a few immigrants, its share of Canada’s population is diminished. This diminishment reduces its political power and influence in Ottawa and leads to its marginilization in the confederation. Quebec has trapped itself into this no-win scenario because of its historical foolish support of the open-doors Trudeau and his gang of liberals.

  24. François says:

    @ Anonymous (20):

    Where should I start, fellow citizen? To answer all of what you wrote or referred to (totally anonymously, by the way), I’m afraid I’d have to write a book.

    Well, at least, let me answer some of it…

    «That the global floodgates of immigration were opened in Canada is entirerly due to Pierre Trudeau and the federal liberal party… Trudeau himself is a Francophone Quebecker.»

    There, I think you are at least partly making my point for me. And about Trudeau and his arrogant Liberals being supported exclusively by Quebec, I must ask: where the Hell did you get that information? And WHY did the Liberals open the floodgates, as you say? Ever thought about that?

    You say immigrants in places like Vancouver don’t want to speak French… Again, you’re making my point for me. All the more reason for us to separate! This idea of a bilingual country from coast to coast is a utopia. We sure as hell don’t believe in it.

    And if you want to actually let us go, my friend, well please, by all means, LET US! I mean, why did your central governement, in Ottawa, plot to steal the 1995 referendum, by giving lots of people who never should have voted, false papers to do so? New immigrants voted, Ontarian students voted, even dead people «voted»! YOU OFTEN DON’T SEEM TO BE SO WILLING TO LET US GO.

    Of course, if we left, we would do so with a large part of your natural ressources, including water. I guess that does get into the equation, right?

    Did you hear about the Brinks thing, that was done in 1980? And what about the Gomery commission? What were the reasons behind that?

    Really, you want to let us go, just like that…? Don’t lie to us, we are not stupid.

    There are so many other things I could write to answer you…

    It comes down to this: we want Québec to stay French (and White!), and we want a place among all the nations of the world, as a nation. And Ottawa recognizes us as a nation already!

    We don’t like your multiculturalism. We don’t share your so-called values. We want to follow our own path, choose our own destiny.

    Plus, we have our own culture, instead of being just some kind of non-sensical sub-United States, still loyal to the Queen, like you.

  25. highduke says:

    Posters shouldn’t let wishful thinking make them spread misconceptions. Whites in Canada, especially the founding British stock very much love their Multiculturalism even if they find the incessant media propaganda cheesey. It’s become part of their national identity much like universal medical care and a parcel of the anti-US sentiment which itself is based on a false generalization of the US as a conservative backwater. Whites destroyed Vancouver over hockey. Not Blacks. Think about that.

  26. NorthernThunder says:

    @ Francois…I think you over-estimate the number of English Canadians wanting Quebec to remain part of Canada. As an English-Quebecer I actually tacitly support full independence for Quebec. If I were Quebecois I would be a staunch and vocal separatist. Quebec deserves its own nation and yes, Quebecois culture is more distinct and entrenched than the melting pot, mongrelized English-Canadian one. I unfortunately think, due to massive immigration, time is running out for separation unless the future holds the repatriation of all Third World invaders.

    As for Tony Blair, if there is any justice in this world the fate of England’s greatest traitor will be for his dessicated corpse to twist slowly in very English breeze following his trial for treason.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Reply to Francois (again) at #24: I apologize for not having a screen-name;

    “Trudeau and his arrogant liberals being supported exclusively by Quebec, I musk ask? Where the hell did you get that information?”

    Are you serious sir? Study any election in Canada prior to the emergence of the Bloc Quebecois in the 1990’s. Quebec ALWAYS gave its support to the liberals. They would never have formed majority governments without Quebec’s support. The liberals never got very much support in Canada-less Quebec. The liberals built their entire electoral strategy around winning in Quebec. Are you trying to suggest that French-Canadians were historical supporters of the conservatives? The 1972 election where the liberals were defeated in all nine English speaking provinces is a good example. Only Quebec saved Trudeau’s miserable ass and allowed him to hang on to a minority parliament. 1972 also saw a new record number of immigrants arrive despite the country being in a recession at the time.

    “This idea of a bilingual country from coast to coast is a utopia. We certainly dont believe in it”.

    Agreed 100% sir. Neither do 99% of ordinary English speakers when they are asked (which is almost never). It is a ridiculous, absurd and hugely expensive policy. I have warned Americans about the great dangers of bilingualism many times. But it was Trudeau and his Quebec-backed liberals who imposed it on us, making it official policy in 1969. Any Anglo who opposes it is called a “bigot”.

    “You often don’t seem willing to let us go.”

    Your comments about Ottawa’s machinations are quite true. I recall reading about three citizenship judges flown in to Montreal from New Brunswick just to make sure as many immigrants as possible would be able to vote in the 1995 referendum. It was taken as a given that immigrants would vote no. But your error here is to confuse the actions of the degenerate government ruling class elites, with that of the ordinary Canadian person in the street. What the elites want, they usually get. The masses are not consulted. Just because that pompous limousine liberal, Tony Blair, decided to flood Great Britain with non-whites to make the U.K. more multi-cultural doesn’t mean the ordinary people of Britain ever wanted it. Or were even asked. Were Americans permitted to vote in 1965 on allowing their country to be swamped with non-whites? No. And who was the prime minister in 1995? Francophone Quebecer Jean Chretien.

    Believe me sir, most ordinary Canadians would be quite happy to see Quebec go (this doesn’t mean though, that we have personal animosity towards Francophones). No more prime ministers from Quebec, no more billions spent on bilingualism. No more wasted energy on Quebec. You also don’t mention the eight billion dollars in transfer payments and equalization that Quebec helps itself to every year. And Quebec can also take its 23% share of the federal debt with it when it leaves.

    “We don’t like your multiculturalism.”

    “Your”? Most Canadians despise the policy and never wanted it. Or were asked. Again it was TRUDEAU and his Quebec-backed liberals that implemented it. You need to differentiate the elites and ordinary people.

    “Still loyal to the queen like you.”

    NOT TRUE AT ALL. I would like nothing better then to withdraw from the moribund British commonwealth, (Where’s the “common”? What do I have in “common” with Jamaicans and Pakistanis? And where’s the “wealth”?) and have Canada become a republic.

  28. François says:

    @ Anonymous (23):

    «Quebec has trapped itself into this no-win scenario because of its historical foolish support of the open-doors Trudeau and his gang of liberals.»

    Trudeau did what he did once he was elected, and we never supported that, as a people. Mass immigration does nothing good for us, and we know it. Trudeau is one of the most despised persons in our history.

    We did not paint ourselves into a corner; Ottawa is trying, trough different tactics, to push us into such a corner. Period.

  29. Howard W. Campbell says:

    If you pull up the video to Rush “Subdivisions” on YouTube, it was filmed in 1982 in and around Toronto. In the school, train station, mall, and everywhere else not mentioned, every person in that video was white. If one were to attend that same school now, it would be a multicultural mess. According to wikipedia, the “Visible Minority” population of Scarborough, ONT (where most of this video was filmed)is now 67%.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Reply to Francois (again); Still sorry for no screen name.

    “Trudeau is one of the most despised persons in our history”.

    I am glad we can at least agree on something sir. But as a French-Canadian and born and raised in Quebec, he was a product of YOUR culture sir, not MINE.

    Still for the record, here are the official results of the Canadian federal elections in which Trudeau was prime minister from 1968-1984. The following list contains the number of seats in Quebec that voted for Trudeau.

    1968 56 seats for Trudeau out of 74. (75.6%)

    1972 60 seats for Trudeau out of 78. (76.9%)

    1974 60 seats for Trudeau out of 74. (81.0%)

    1979 67 seats for Trudeau out of 75. (89.3%)

    1980 74 seats for Trudeau out of 75. (98.6%)

    Note how not only did Trudeau ALWAYS get the great bulk of Quebec’s seats, but the percentage of his support increased in every single election. In the 1972, 1979 and 1980 elections over half of all liberal M.P.’s came just from the province of Quebec. Without Quebec Trudeau would NEVER have become prime minister of Canada and his liberals could NEVER have imposed such ruinous immigration upon English Canada.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Reply to HighDuke at #25:

    Most British-descended Canadians do NOT “love” multiculturalism, or support the immigration demographics that give life to it. These policies were IMPOSED upon us. We never asked for them, voted for them, or were even consulted about it. Ditto for the odious policy of enforced bilingualism. The great villian here was the traitorous whack-job Pierre Trudeau, a Francophone from Quebec who never got more then a modest minority of support from Anglo-Canadians. You are right that the elites have tried to brainwash ordinary Canadians into believing it is part of “our” identity, just like with our “free” health care. This of course is all nonsense, and most ordinary Canadians don’t really buy into it. Nor are we “anti-American”. Only our elites are. By the way, the racial breakdown for the Vancouver riots is about 60-65% white and 35-40% Asian. You are right about the absence of blacks. But hockey is hardly a black thing.

  32. Michael C. Scott says:

    A “model”? Is that supposed to be funny?

    I wouldn’t consider the Sikh terrorists who blew up an Air India flight from Canada to be “model” immigrants.

  33. Anonymous says:

    As an American who has been going to Vancouver all my life I can only say what a tragedy! The immigrant rich Chinese have made housing in Vancouver out of reach for the average White Canadian. Also along with anti Amercanism, Multiculturalusm has become a religion for many White Canadians. I love Canada, however the Canada I love is quickly disappearing. The U.S has a 1/4 chance to turn this around. Canada 1/10.

  34. François says:

    @ Northern Thunder:

    “If I were Quebecois I would be a staunch and vocal separatist. Quebec deserves its own nation and yes, Quebecois culture is more distinct and entrenched than the melting pot, mongrelized English-Canadian one…”

    I am glad you understand our position. Thank you very much. Let us work towards common objectives now.

    And you know, I do think Canadians have the right to keep their country White. Really.

  35. François says:

    @ Anonymous (27):


    You wrote many, many things, and I could answer them. You see, I’m afraid you tend to ignore certain truths, like when you wrote about Trudeau being entirely a product of our culture (conveniently ignoring the facts that his mother was Scottish-Canadian, that he studied in English, had a British wife), among other things…

    You say you feel no animosity towards us. Well, in that case, I would suggest that we pull our ressources, and work to have our own countries, free of multiculturalism, and massive Third World immigration. How does that sound to you?

    Look, we could argue for days, but if you are ready to see us go, and find our own destiny, teh put your money where your mouth is. And help us achieve precisely that! Anglo-Canadians should form a new federal political party, one that would be anti-multiculturalism, and truly open to the idea of a sovereign Québec.

    If what you say is true, when you say that most Anglo-Canadians are willing to let us go, and actually reject multiculturalism, I suppose this should be feasible.

    Your people and mine are White, and if we do not act, we will become dying peoples, slowly dispossesed from our country by Third Worlders and the financial elite.

    Let’s become constructive, and try to work towards a common goal, securing both our futures. Pierre Elliot Trudeau is now dead; why not allow his fight to keep Québec from separating at all cost, die with him?

    Liberals (including his son Justin Trudeau), the NPD (limousine liberals, as you say), and even the Tories, will do everything in their power to prevent that, though. So you’d better be saying the truth, when you say that most Canadians share your views.

    Besides… Canada is broken, it doesn’t work. Let’s redraw the map. But are you really ready for that?

  36. Anonymous says:

    Reply to Francois (again):

    There was a party that was anti-multiculturalism founded in Anglo-Canada. It was the Reform party. It was quickly denounced by “everyone” (meaning the powers that be in the political class and the MSM) as “racist” and was eventually folded back into the old, and pretty much useless “conservatives”.

    I am all for Quebec independence. Most people I speak to now agree. It wasn’t always like this. Back in 1976 when the P.Q. first came to power, in my class the professor asked if anyone favoured it. I was the only one who raised my hand. My prof immediately said I was a “bigot” and “didn’t like French people”. The label stuck and haunted me for the rest of my days there. But bit by bit, people have swung my way over the last 35 years. The costs and consequences of the never ending constitutional issues, the failure of the Meech lake and Charlottetown accords. The financial costs of bilingualism, which Trudeau assured us would end Quebec separatism. The ever growing distance socially AND spatially between the two solitudes. Many people now tend to agree with me.

    The PROBLEM is the elites don’t. In a sense, Quebec made a fatal mistake with its blind support for the liberals. It made itself indispensable to them. Without being spotted 70-75 seats in Quebec the liberals would never have become Canada’s dominant party. Naturally the liberals would do ANYTHING in their power to keep this jewel in the crown of their electoral strategy from leaving. Without Quebec the liberals are nothing. Had Quebec spread its votes equally among all parties, no party would have been particularly disadvantaged by its loss. But it didn’t do that. Also look at the two referendums. In 1980 the P.M. was Trudeau, a French-Canadian from Quebec. In 1995 it was Chretien, a French-Canadian from Quebec. Don’t you see the problem Francois? If Quebec seceded both of these clowns would be out of a job. They weren’t just fighting to “save” Canada, but to SAVE their political careers. (As an American comparison, imagine honest Abe as president while his home state of Illinois joined the C.S.A. How long would the north have tolerated that?) So naturally they were going to use every dirty trick in the book to wreck the referendum, while painting themselves to Anglo-Canadians (only one in sixteen of whom speak French and know very little about Quebec) as “patriots saving confederation”. What Anglo-conservative politician is going to challenge a matter wrongly and falsely framed like that?

    I agree Canada is broken. Broken beyond repair. The map should be redrawn. I would even go so far as to partition New Brunswick so the Acadians could join Quebec as they would have little cultural or linguistic future otherwise.

  37. Laager says:

    @ 22 Fred from France

    “Before Canada, I would like Tony Blair to give his opinion on the future referendum on Scottish independence. Diversity does not seem to work too well in the United(?) Kingdom either.”

    And how about returning the 6 Irish counties of Ulster back to the Republic of Ireland and allowing them to become a unified nation once again.

    The new English/Irish Protestant minority in the north would just have to bite the bullet and get on with life as the white South Africans have been forced to do post 1994.