Can Muslims integrate into western societies? The French say NON!

"Face à l'islam, les Français s'inquiètent" - That's the unsurprising headline on a report in Le Journal du Dimanche (= Sunday Journal) on a recent survey conducted by pollsters IFOP (French Institute of Public Opinions). It means "Confronted by Islam, the French are getting worried." No kidding!

The IFOP poll showed that 61% of French people think that Islamism is "incompatible with the values of French society." That's a rise of 8% over the number who thought that when asked in 2018. The polling firm was investigating the "worrying" rise and influence of Islamism in France, and its manifestations in many aspects of public life, particularly in the public display of such symbols of Islam as the wearing of the niqab (veil) and burqa (complete head-to-toe body covering). (If you're not sure of the difference, click here for Walt's explanation.)

Another manifestation of the Islamization of France (and all of western Europe) is the increasing number of schools where Islam, including the law of Sharia, is taught. According to the IFOP survey, 80% of pensioners, 69% of workers, 70% of employers, and even 55% of left-wing voters expressed concern about this. According to another IFOP survey, nearly half (46%) of foreign-born Muslim immigrants want France to replace its legal system with Sharia law. That point of view is supported by 18% of Islamists born in France.

On this and other questions on the accommodation of Muslims, the poll noted a strong difference of opinion between between left and right. About 55% of the supporters of the leftist group France Insumisa and the Socialist Party defended Muslim worship, while 85% of the supporters of Marine Le Pen's National Rally agreed with the statement that "Islamism is incompatible with the values of French society."

The survey results add to those compiled last month by international global consulting firm IPSOS, which revealed that 60% of French people saw as a threat the already massive but still growing number of immigrants arriving as a result of President Emmanuel Macron's open border policy. "More than one in two French (60%) see migrants as a threat," the survey data said, and 65% "think that welcoming them will not improve the country's situation. 45% of French people think that "the arrival of migrants deprives French people of social services," it added, noting that "the idea that French people should be given priority in the allocation of jobs has increased in France over the past three years."

The people of France seem pretty clued in about the threat to their society posed by the influx of alien immigrants and "refugees". The people of Québec have also figured it out. See "Québec to require immigrant wannabes to pass values test", WWW 31/10/19. Whether the realization comes too late to keep the Muslim tails from wagging the French and Québécois dogs doesn't bear thinking about. President Trump has moved to stop or at least limit Muslim immigration. Canada's Islamophile Prime Minister? Hah!

New poll: record numbers of Canucks against more immigration

The official party line of Canada's Liberal government, dutifully parroted by the state-owned Canadian Broadcorping Castration, is that the majority of tolerant and progressive Canadians support immigration, and all the benefits that admitting hordes of Third-Worlders will bring to a grateful country. Just a few days ago, the Ministry of Immigration and Refugees [sic] released the results of a poll, taken in March, that said that although Canucks have some reservations about the asylum-seekers crossing the US-Canada border "irregularly", they still welcome the world's poor huddled masses.

Walt and others called BS on that one. The truth is that, outside of the chattering classes of downtown Toronto and Parliament Hill, most Canadians have been dubious for decades about the merits of higher levels of immigration, now closing on 300,000 per year not counting the illegals. Today's National Post reveals the truth about popular sentiment, according to a poll taken in late July by the respected Angus Reid organization. Walt trusts that Angus Reid and Postmedia won't mind our reposting part of the article by Brian Platt and the main graphic, which shows clearly the growth of opposition to immigration over the past few years. [Memo to Postmedia: Walt doesn't make any money from this blog! It's a public service. Thank you! Ed.]

The report from the Angus Reid Institute analyzes polling data going back to 1975. It shows that throughout that period a relatively constant number of Canadians — around one in four — have always said they think immigration levels should be decreased, while support for keeping levels the same has tended to be slightly higher. Only about 10% of Canadians have supported increasing the levels during that time. But the latest poll shows a spike in opposition to immigration, which the organization says coincides with "more frequent and increasingly fraught conversations about policy regarding immigration and migration to Canada."

This year's survey shows 49% of respondents think immigration levels should be decreased, compared to 36% in 2014. 31% think levels should stay the same, compared to 48% in 2014. Only 6% think levels should be increased, compared to 9% in 2014. This brilliant bit of satire, scraped from Blazing Cat Fur, explains why so many Canucks feel that way.

Walt wonders if King Trudeau II is pleased with his handiwork. Turns out his constant virtue-signalling and shaming Canadians who disagree with him (see "What happens when Canadians exercise their right to speak freely about illegal border jumpers and diversity", WWW 20/8/18) has had the effect of poking the bear. We'll see the results in 14 months... or sooner, if Mr Socks decides to call a snap election before things get worse.

But chances of a snap election are, IMHO, slim and none. (Lifetime pct .991.) Junior doesn't read the polls, or the comments section on those CBC articles where commenting is allowed (as long as M-103 is respected).

Just yesterday, Saddam Hussesn, the Somali-born Minister for Refugees &c, announced that the Gliberals are dropping the controversial lottery system for reuniting immigrant families and moving to a first-come, first-served online system. Under the family reunification programme, they will admit 20,500 parents and grandparents -- many of them illiterate and suffering from chronic illnesses -- in 2019, and 21,000 in 2020. Those numbers are more than double the figure for the first year of JT's government, 2016, in which 10,000 applications were approved. Talk about listening to public opinion! The Liberals are stone deaf... and in 14 months will be stone dead! (Lifetime pct still .991.)

Further reading: Never thought we'd see the day when Walt would recommend a piece by the CBC's resident anti-Trumper, Neil Macdonald, but "Maxime Bernier is challenging orthodoxy. He deserves a civil reply", dealing as it does with freedom of speech, is worth reading. The comments section is open too!

83% of French back expulsion of "most dangerous" foreigners

A new poll taken days after a self-proclaimed "soldier of ISIS" killed four people, including a heroic police officer, in the French town of Trèbes, shows the French public strongly support a serious crackdown on radical Islam. An overwhelming majority are in favour of deporting some 20,000 "most dangerous" foreigners tagged as "fiché S", meaning that security services have a file on them.

The poll, taken by Odoxa-Dentsu and published on March 30th in Le Figaro, gauged support for proposals put forward after the terrorist attack by Laurent Wauquiez, leader of France's newly-formed Republican Party. (Good choice of names, eh!)

Click on the graphic to enlarge it for ease of reading. If you don't read French, Walt will list M Wauquiez's four modest suggestions:
* Ban salafism (approved by 88% of respondents to the poll)
* Place in "administrative detention" the most dangerous "fiché S" cases (87% approval)
* Expel (= deport) the "fiché S" foreigners (83%)
* Re-establish the state of emergency lifted only a few weeks prior to the Trèbes "incident" (61%)

The blue circles show how support for the propositions breaks down according to the political preferences of those polled, from left ("de gauche") through "REM" (the party of President Macron) to right ("de droite") and "FN" (Marine Le Pen's Front National). It's worth noting that even leftists and centrist REM supporters approved the ideas put forward, with only one exception.

The bar graph at the left shows response to the question: Would you be in favour of some curtailment of liberties in order to better assure the security of the French people? 61% of those polled said YES, and even 50% of self-identified leftists agreed.

As for Salafism - a term which may be unfamiliar to some of our readers -- the majority of responders support banning of the radical Islamic sect, even though over half of them acknowledged that implementing the ban in France would be difficult, if not impossible. Breitbart London has previously reported on the nature of Salafism, which contains many radical preachers who see violence as legitimate in pursuance of its aims and which provides the intellectual basis for the Islamic State. A regional director of the German constitutional police said in 2017 that "every jihadist terrorist we've seen in Europe in recent years came from the Salafist scene."

The opinions of the French public are clear, and strong too. Will the government of Emmanuel Macron listen to the people? Are such politically incorrect opinions ever listened to by the government of any of our western democracies? Walt can think of only one prime minister or president who would heed the opinion of the people who elected him. I won't tell you his name but his initials are Donald Trump!

UPDATED: Guess what? Trump leads latest polls!

Not so long ago, the lamestream media were assuring us that Hellery had a lock on the presidential race. Since then, as Walt told you recently, she's been keeping shtum lest she say anything which would reinforce the public perception that she's a liar and a crook. Her silence has allowed The Donald to creep up behind her, and now... whoda thunk it... he's edging ahead!

The New York Times reports today that a survey from CNN/ORC shows 45% of likely voters backing Mr Trump, with 43% supporting La Clinton. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate who is banking on a late surge in the polls to be included in the presidential debates, sits in third place at seven per cent (7%). Statistically, given the usual margin of error in these polls, that's a tie, but still... Trump is leading!

Further reading (added 7/9/16):
"Trump closes in on Clinton as US election enters final stretch, polls suggest" - Analysis by the CBC's Éric Grenier. Synopsis: If it comes down to temperament, Clinton wins. If it comes down to trust, Trump wins.
"President Trump Isn’t Farfetched" - Wall Street Journal, 6/9/16. Subhead: "Pundits treat Clinton like a shoo-in, but polls tell a different story. Victory is well within Trump’s reach." (As I was saying... Walt)

Hellery's low profile allows Trump to catch up

Anybody heard from Hellery Clinton lately? Since the gooey clusterfuck of the Democratic convention, Crooked Hillary has barely opened her mouth. She's been off the campaign trail for at least a day for unspecified medical treatment -- a case of lockjaw, perhaps -- and when she does appear hasn't said much except to call Donald Trump a racist.

Walt guesses that La Clinton's advisers are telling her to keep her head down, pending the release (set for September 13th) of more e-mails about Libya. What about the Clinton Foundation and the millions the would-be First Couple have made out of that? Let Bill handle those questions. He's the one who says he'd sooner have a root canal than give up that little money-maker. What about policy? Hellery assures us that she'll continue the fine work of the Prez and her husband. Trust her. That's all.

Counselling Mrs Clinton to STFU and run on the family name may prove to be a bad call. Her silence leaves the field wide open for The Donald, who has something to say about anything and everything. Mrs Clinton took a pass on the invitation of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto to visit his country. Mr Trump said he'd be there like Jack the Bear, thus scoring a tremendous PR coup. What he and President Pena Nieto said to or about each other doesn't matter. There they were, on the same platform, looking presidential and speaking calmly about the main issue in the US election campaign. Score one for the Donald.

Meanwhile, Hellery stands quietly, like a cigar store Indian, trying to appear above it all. And, according to an article by Aaron Blake in the reliably liberal Washington Post, "A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton".

As of Wednesday, Americans' views of Bill's surrogate hit a record low. A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed 41% of those polled had a favourable impression of Hellery, while 56% had an unfavourable one. That's the worst image she has had in her quarter-century in national public life. If it weren't for Trump (Mr Blake writes), Mrs Clinton would be the most unpopular major-party presidential nominee in modern American history.

Perhaps most notably, La Clinton's image has declined significantly from just a month ago. After the Democratic convention, Americans were about evenly split: 48% favourable and 50% unfavourable. (That's the Washington Post's idea of an even split. If the election turned out that way, Hellery would lose!)

Mr Blake can't figure out what might have caused Mrs Clinton to fall further than ever before. Perhaps (he writes) she simply got an extended bounce after the Democratic convention that has finally faded. It's also possible that adverse headlines last week about the Clinton Foundation and thousands of newly discovered emails from the private email server Clinton used as secretary of state reinforced why views of her had been worsening prior to the July conventions. (Ya think?!)

But it was clear long before the convention that Mrs Clinton was headed in the wrong direction, setting new records for her unpopularity. Her image has been on a downward trajectory since her tenure as Secretary of State ended in 2013, and the decline continued through the primary campaign. That the race downhill to the presidensity is still competitive is due to Mr Trump's image, compounded by Mrs Clinton's "personal problems". At the moment (Mr Blake concludes), the voters who will determine the next president don't like her much more than they like The Donald.

84% of Scott Adams' readers think Clinton bigoted vs whities

From Scott "Dilbert" Adams' blog today...

Yes, I know a Twitter survey with a non-random sample has no scientific validity. And yes, I know my followers are not representative of the public. And yes, I know the survey question leads the witness.

Still, I found this interesting from a persuasion perspective:

If you'd like to read Scott's comments, in full, click here.

Poll shows most Canadians DON'T want to take more refugees

The Canadian meeja -- a generally leftish lot -- have been rabbiting on for three weeks now about the terrible plight of all those poor "refugees" from Syria (and, errr, other places) trying to make their way to Greece, Italy and on to Germany, where the streets are paved with gelt and milk, honey and money are provided by the guilt-ridden herrenvolk.

Canuck political pundits have been falling all over themselves to castigate Prime Minister Steve Harper for not doing more to assist the asylum-seekers to cross the Atlantic and settle in Canada. This is going to be the ballot issue in the upcoming federal election, they say, and Mr. Harpoon's apparent indifference will cost him his job.

That's what they say. But many Canadians, including some of Walt's agents, beg to differ. One of my minions has sent me a copy of an e-mail he wrote to John Ivison, a normally sound columnist for the Notional Pest and regular panelist on CTV's Question Period. He cautioned Mr. Ivison that the breadth and depth of support for the idea of bringing in tens of thousands of asylum-seekers whose bona fides has not been established was not so great as the PC press might think. Answer came there none.

However, our agent's suspicions are now confirmed by two major public opinion polls, reported by the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente today in "What Canadians really think about the refugee crisis". Ms Wente warns political soothsayers against paying much attention to those who say the Canadian government "is cold, callous and indifferent. Perhaps it is. But it seems that many Canadians wouldn’t have it any other way."

Ms Wente passes on the results of an Ipsos poll, taken over the weekend, which found that despite all the bad publicity, 38% of Canadians still think the Harper Conservatives would "make the best decision for Canada on the Syrian refugee situation." 32% named the NDP, and 30% the Liberals. The Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, has proposed bringing in 25,000 of the new boat people by the end of the year. 61% of those polled think that's a bad idea.

The other poll cited in Ms Wente's column was taken by EKOS, on the 4th through 8th of this month. Only 36% of respondents thought Canada should be taking in more refugees. 25% said too many are already being brought in. 34% the number being admitted is about right. Do that math! Nearly 60% of Canadians don't want to take in more refugees!

Further reading:
"Conservatives’ refugee crisis response far from fatal for Harper", also in today's Globe and Mail.
"Swedish experience shows folly of welcoming unassimilable immigrants" (WWW 13/9/15)

Angus Reid: pollster, Catholic, shit-disturber

Walt was pleased to discover, just today, that there really is an Angus Reid. As in "Angus Reid, polling and market research guru". Mr. Reid is a Canadian, born in Regina SK on 17 December 1947. That makes him old enough to retire, and he can well afford so to do, having sold the polling company named after him for $100 million.

But at only 67, he's far from ready to put down his clipboard and pencil. Last year, shaped by his early career as a sociology professor at the University of Manitoba, he founded the Angus Reid Institute, so he could conduct "investigative polling" on the issues of the day. He’s already spent almost $1 million of his own money on it, and takes no salary.

Why? Because, with media outlets, governments and academics drastically cutting their polling budgets, Angus Reid feels called to make available his own surveys on a host of social, moral, religious, cultural and political questions. He was inspired by his mother’s fascination with spirituality and philosophy, the Jesuits who educated him, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran theologian who was executed for resisting the Nazis. Now Mr. Reid is ready to do some of his own "shit-disturbing". That's the way he puts it in "Angus Reid, unchained", an interview with Vancouver Sun's Douglas Todd. "Anything, in our view, is fair game," he told the columnist. "We rely on no corporation, government or other source of funding.... I’ve always wanted to have complete free rein in the research I do."

Mr. Reid says he's free, now, to look into controversial questions "without fear.” That’s because, unlike most other polling companies, he doesn't need to worry about offending or embarrassing corporate or political clients through his polling, which is based on sampling from a pool of 130,000 Canadians who have registered with the Angus Reid Forum. [There's a link to the forum at the end of this post. Ed.]

Angus Reid is a practising Catholic, and attends Christ the Redeemer Church in West Vancouver. As such, he's not always pleased by the answers he gets to his questions on issues with moral as well as political dimensions.

For instance, he was dismayed by respondents' backing of assisted suicide, which he worries will be dangerous when doctors start “handing out suicide pills.” His poll on palliative care also showed how this potential alternative to assisted suicide is offered haphazardly.

He is likewise unimpressed that "a very large chunk of Canadians believe abortion is OK for choosing desirable characteristics in your kids." The era of designer babies may be upon us, he warns. His polling consistently reveals that Canadians (as well as Americans) are succumbing to the "trivialization of morality", including an obsession with the antics of celebrities.

"Consumerism is the new religion," Mr. Reid said. The number of Canadians who are "anti-religious" has risen to 30%. Another 40%  are in the “muddled middle” with regards to spirituality. And young people are increasingly uninterested in prayer. In his opinion, "These people don’t have any serenity in their lives."

Walt finds Mr. Reid's remarks sad commentary on the morals and mores of the society in which we live. But this is the kind of information we -- especially our political and religious leaders -- need if they are to guide us out of the morass of spiritual and ethical decay into which we have sunk.

The danger already too evident is that the same "leaders" will substitute poll results for their own moral compasses. "Never mind what's right! Do what's popular!" God save us!


Useful link: Want to make your opinions matter and get rewarded for your feedback? Click here to join the Angus Reid Forum (brought to you by Vision Critical). Does doing these surveys make any difference? Considering that governments and businesses pay thousands of dollars for polling, Walt believes so.

Western and Muslim societies "irreconcilably different", poll finds

Here's a real news flash for you. Western and Muslim societies are different. They have different religions, different customs, and different value systems. And, according to polling data being discussed at the Metropolis Conference of the Association for Canadian Studies, most Canadians -- Muslim and non-Muslim alike -- think the differences are "irreconcilable".

Whether it’s the rise of Islamic State zealots, the killing of free-speech advocates in Paris and Copenhagen or disputes over niqabs, the polling, done by Leger Marketing, shows Canadians share in the growing global anxiety about sectarian conflict. 63% of Canadian Protestants, 62% Jews, 60% of Catholics and 46% of the non-religious believe Western and Islamic societies cannot be reconciled. Even 42% of Canadian Muslims believe the contrast between the West and Islamic cultures is too great to be bridged.

Jack Jedwab, vice-president of the ACS which commissioned the Leger polls, called the findings "a huge blow to interfaith dialogue". He said the belief of a majority of Canadians that the West and Islamic society are locked in inevitable antagonism echoes the thesis of Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of Political Order. Way back in 1992, Prof. Huntington predicted -- correctly, as it turns out -- that people’s cultural and religious identities would be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.

The Pew Research Center keeps track of such things. Its new report -- "Latest Trends in Religious Restrictions and Hostilities" -- confirms that worldwide social hostilities involving religion reached a six-year peak in 2012 and have remained basically stuck at that level.
Almost three in four global citizens, Pew reports, live in countries where religion-fuelled conflicts run the gamut from vandalism of property and desecration of sacred texts to violent assaults resulting in deaths and injuries.

What are the worst countries in the world for sectarian conflict? According to the Pew index, India shares that distinction with... wait for it... Israel. Next on the "Very High" list are the Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Tanzania, Indonesia, Egypt, Central African Republic, Iraq and Kenya.

What is the link which connects all the countries -- saving perhaps Sri Lanka -- on the list of "Very High" social hostility index? No prize for guessing that they all have Muslim majorities or large Muslim minorities.

What should we in North America learn from all t his? The polling done for the ACS revealed Canadians' concern about religion-related conflict is leading many to yearn for tighter border restrictions and less immigration from Muslim countries such Pakistan, Nigeria, etc etc etc.

Asked whether governments should deal with security concerns by "making it more difficult for people to come across national borders," 68% of Canadian Catholics agreed. So did 62% of Canadian Protestants and Jews, as well as 51% of the non-religious. Even 42% of Muslims agreed.

The two Leger polls of 2000 Canadians, including 500 born outside the country, were conducted in 2013 and 2014. They have an accuracy of plus or minus 2.9% 19 times out of 20. In general the polling results did not show marked differences between the responses of native-born Canadians and immigrants. Even the new-comers know a problem when they see one... even when they're part of it.

Univision poll shows world's Catholics deeply divided on moral issues

The Spanish-language network Univision has just released the results of a massive poll of Catholics in 12 countries with some of the world’s largest Catholic populations. The poll confirms that there are sharp differences of opinion amongst self-identified Catholics over Church teachings.

The poll of 12,000 Catholics, conducted by Bendixen & Amandi International, reveals a church dramatically divided between the developing world in Africa and Asia, which hews closely to traditional doctrine on issues such as same-sex "marriage", abortion and contraception, and the "Western" countries of Europe, North America and parts of Latin America, where there is considerable support for practices that the Church traditionally taught are immoral.

Recent pronouncements by Pope Francis have muddied the holy water on things like homosexuality, but we'll leave the party pope's pandering aside for now.

Catholics in developing countries are more accepting than their European and American counterparts of Church teachings on homosexuality and contraception. The poll found, for example, that 99% of African respondents oppose same-sex marriage, while in the USA only 40% think it's unnatural and disgusting. (OK, I admit to a bit of editorializing there.) 80% of Africans (polling was done in the Congo and Uganda) accept the Church teaching that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, while only 30% of European Catholics agreed.

Should divorcés who remarry outside the Church be able to receive communion? Traditional teaching says not, but only 19% of Catholics in the European countries and 30% of those in Latin America agree.

Most disturbing to traditionalists was the finding that the majority of Catholics, worldwide, would allow abortion, at least in some circumstances. Overall, 65% said abortions should be allowed: 8% in all cases and 57% in some, such as when the mother’s life is in danger. The highest support for abortion is in European countries, then Brazil and Argentina, then the USA, where 76% said it should be allowed in some or all cases.

Walt recommends reading the entire article in the Washington Post: Pope Francis faces church divided over doctrine, global poll of Catholics finds

Towards the end of the piece the writers raise a question with grave implications for the future of Church doctrine. Now that the Church is run by a man whose ambition is to be the most popular pope ever -- even more popular than JPII! -- is Church doctrine to be altered according to the tides of public opinion?

"Since the liberalizing and divisive Second Vatican Council," they write [Walt's emphasis], "Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II appeared to approach the gap [between dogma and public opinion] with an explicit plan: Narrow it. They emphasized doctrine and called for institutions that wanted to call themselves Catholic to follow the rules.

"So what is Pope Francis’s plan, if he has one? Critics say his solicitation of opinions wrongly gives the appearance that Catholicism is a democracy.... Jose Casanova [a sociologist of religion at ultra-liberal Georgetown University] said it’s not clear what Francis plans to do with the research, but the approach 'fits with his idea of the church going out into the world and encountering the world as it is, not expecting the world to come to it.'

"The Church 'may be in a period of moral evolution,' he said."

Moral evolution, eh... That's a pretty ominous phrases. Walt wonders if it really means what's right and wrong is subject to change without notice, depending on the results of the latest poll. "If people don't like what the Church teaches, then the Church will teach what they do like." Lord, save us!

Majority of Americans think US should mind its own business overseas

The American government's interventionist foreign policies are wrong-headed, counter-productive and just plain stupid. Ron Paul told you so. Walt told you so. But the Bushes, pater et filius, the Clintons and Hussein Obama told you the opposite. Who ya gonna believe?

To judge by the results of the last election -- was it only a year ago? -- the Merkin people believed the politicians and the establishment. But today comes a sign that the scales are finally falling off the eyes of Joe the Plumber.

Today, for the first time in almost four decades of polling, a study by the Pew Research Center (in association with the Council on Foreign Relations) suggests that the majority of Americans believe the US plays a less important and powerful role in the world than it did ten years ago.

As the chart at the right shows, most people now believe America should “mind its own business internationally”.

The findings of the Pew poll suggest Americans think their country is now less respected abroad, bucking a trend in which Americans believed their reputation had recovered since the Prez Obama was elected. Funny how giving him a Nobel prize for doing nothing except being black would give that impression. But the penny has dropped, and impressions of how the US is perceived under Obama are now, broadly, as negative as they were in the final days of the administration of Bush the Younger.

Although there is a growing desire for the development of stronger trade and business links abroad, it seems that Americans want their leaders to adopt a less interventionist approach to solving the world's political and social problems. It's time, many people think, to stop trying to be the world's policeman and concentrate on fixing the many things that are broken in the Land of the Free Lunch.

But will America's political leaders listen? Is the Pope Catholic? [The answer to both questions is meant to be "NO". Ed.]

Survey says... lots of Canucks biased against Jews, Muslims, Sikhs etc

Whoda thunk it? Canadians, always so smug about being tolerant and inclusive, celebrating diversity and all that BS, secretly dislike certain minority groups. That would include those they can recognize by their religious headgear and facial shrubbery.

After the Parti Québecois got the "conversation" started by proposing a Charter of Québec Values, it was inevitable that the public opinion pollsters would ask people -- in both la Belle Province and TROC -- how they felt about the accommodation of religious and ethnic minority cultures. That's what the fuss is all about -- whether it's time for the multiculti tail to stop wagging the Québec and/or Canadian dogs.

Today's National Post reports the results of a Forum poll on multiculturalism. The results may be dismaying to the "progressive thinkers" who dominate Canadian media and politics, but should hardly come as a surprise to anyone who listens to the conversations at Tim Horton's.

Turns out that about half of Bloc Québecois and Parti Québecois supporters think that Muslims and Jews have too much influence in their province, while nearly a third of British Columbians think the same of "Sikhs and Asians". [Aren't Sikhs Asians? Or do they mean Chinese? I'm confused! Ed.]

That sentiment is particularly pronounced in Québec -- exactly what Pauline Marois is counting on -- but the rest of Canada (TROC) isn't far behind, with about a third of Canadians saying Muslims have too much influence in their home provinces. Hey, Steve Harper! Hey, Jason Kenney! Are you listening? See? It's not just a few rednecks in Mississauga or Surrey.

Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff told the Post, “If the Charter of Quebec Values is an example of the Parti Québecois practising dog whistle politics...it appears there are plenty of ears tuned to that particular frequency for the message to fall on.”

Speaking of Jews, while less than a fifth of Canadians say that Jews have too much influence, about 32% of Quebeckers think they are too powerful. Canada's largest and strongest community of orthodox Jews is to be found in Montréal. Not long ago a Jewish school in that city was successful in getting the neighbouring YMCA to paint over its windows so the innocent Jewish kids would be spared the sight of scantily clad goyim playing basketball.

In Ontario, it's the francophones -- French speakers, to non-Canadian readers -- who are on the merdeux end of the stick, with 26% of respondents saying the Frenchies [Good job on avoiding the other "Fr" word. Ed] are too powerful. You certainly don't hear the language of Molière much in places like Kingston and Kitchener.

The poll was conducted by Interactive Voice Response on September 16th and 17th among a randomly selected sample of 1527 Canadians 18 years of age and older. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3%, 19 times out of 20. Walt guesses you could call the poll a cross section of Canadian public opinion. No hyphen.