Great White North not so white anymore, eh

Not so great either...

StatsCan (aka Statistics Canada) today released the first batch of results its 2011 "voluntary" National Household Survey, which replaced the mandatory long-form census cancelled by order of Prime Minister Steve "Stephen" Harper because [Ed., please call them -- 1-800-263-1136 -- and see if you can find out the reason.]

The findings should delight the apostles of multiculturalism, secular humanism, diversity and unrestricted immigration. Why? Because what the Survey reveals, in a nutshell, is that your average Canadian no longer looks like this.

Not-so-typical Canadians

Here, in no particular order, are some highlights, although if you're a native-born Canuck you may prefer the term "lowlights".

• Canada was home to an estimated 6,775,800 immigrants in 2011, comprising 20.6% of the population — more than ever before and the highest proportion of all G8 countries.
• About 1,162,900 foreign-born people immigrated to Canada between 2006 and 2011 -- that would be on Harper's watch -- making up 17.2% of the foreign-born population and 3.5% of Canada's total population. [Ed., don't call Statscan. I've figured it out now.]
• 1,400,685 people identified themselves as aboriginal (First Nations, Innu, Indians, Eskimos or all of the above) in 2011, representing 4.3% of the Canadian population.
• Aboriginal peoples accounted for 3.8% of the population in 2006, 3.3% in 2001 and 2.8% in 1996.
• The aboriginal population grew by 20.1% -- 232,385 people -- between 2006 and 2011, compared with 5.2% for non-aboriginal people.
• Aboriginal children aged 14 and under made up 28% of Canada's total aboriginal population, while their non-aboriginal counterparts represented 16.5% of all non-aboriginals.
• Almost half (48.1%) of all children aged 14 and under in foster care in Canada in 2011 were aboriginal children.
• More than 200 different ethnic origins were reported in the 2011 survey, with 13 of them representing more than a million people each.
• Nearly 6,264,800 people identified themselves as "visible minorities" (aka "vizmins"), representing 19.1% of the population. 65% of them were born outside Canada.
• South Asians (= Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans), Chinese and blacks accounted for 61.3% of the visible minority population, followed by Filipinos, Latin Americans, Arabs, Southeast Asians, West Asians, Koreans and Japanese.
• 7.8 million people, 23.9% of the population, reported having no religious affiliation.

Don't call, write or e-mail me to tell me I'm being racist. Those are the Canadian government's figures, and we all know the Dear Leader's regime is nothing if not politically correct.

The Canadian media are making a meal of these statistics, with major dailies running two or three or even four stories each, with opinion pieces yet to come. Here are some of the headlines Walt has seen.

Immigration dramatically changing makeup of Toronto and Canada (Hardly news to Torontonians, and certainly not to CBC Radio which for years now has been giving airtime to people with unintelligble accents in order to be "sounding the way Toronto looks".)

Canada's non-Christian population growing (It's not the immigrants who are identifying themselves as having no religion.)

Aboriginal population young and growing fast (Consider the implications next time you're driving through Caledonia ON.)

Young, suburban and mostly Asian: Canada's immigrant population surges past 20% (Higher in some localities. Hello Mississauga!)

Muslim population is fastest growing religion in Canada, census shows (Ignore the dreadful grammar. But do the math. How long before Canada has an Islamist government?)

Nearly half of Canada's children in foster care are Aboriginal, new census-replacement shows (Some problem with the People?)

One in five Canadians born elsewhere (Somewhere less to their liking, presumably)

Immigrant underclass in GTA fuels simmering frustrations (Begs the question: who's simmering and who's really hot? Amazing, though, that the Toronto Red Star would actually use the word "underclass")

Canadians losing their religion, survey shows (Should read "Native-born Canadians...")

Why the census may not be entirely accurate (Eh? You mean it could be worse?)

Canucks have few answers for this year's meltdown [I think that's actually a sports headline. Ed.]

Walt has no further comment except to say to the uninitiated that the typical Canadian hosers pictured above are Bob and Doug McKenzie, hosts of the "Great White North" segment on the cult classic SCTV sketch comedy series. The "brothers" developed that bit at the urging of the CBC, which felt the show should have more Canadian content. Of course that was 30 years ago.

US military takes sexual assault seriously... you betcha!

"Sexual assault is criminal conduct. It falls well short of the standards America expects of its men and women in uniform." So says the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response website of the Yewnited States Department of Defense.

Yes indeedy, folks! The "Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program reinforces the Air Force’s commitment to eliminate incidents of sexual assault through awareness and prevention training, education, victim advocacy, response, reporting and accountability."

And if you're in any doubt, look how promptly the SAPR unit moved to punish an offender, removing from his position a high-ranking officer -- Lieutenant-Colonel Jeffrey Krusinski -- after he was charged with sexual battery following an "incident" in Arlington County VA early Sunday morning.

A police spokesthingy told the press that Lt.Col. Krusinski was drunk and grabbed the breast and buttocks of a woman he didn't know, in a parking lot. She fought him off and called police. The accused was released Sunday on a $5,000 personal recognizance bond, and is scheduled to be arraigned on Thursday.

Since February of this year, Lt.Col. Krusinski had held the position of, errr, leader of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response unit. Walt guesses that's why the local police, rather than the SAPR unit was called in.

AP reports that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has spoken with Air Force Secretary Michael Donley about the matter and “expressed outrage and disgust over the troubling allegations and emphasized that this matter will be dealt with swiftly and decisively.”

Will Krusinski be drummed out of the USAF? Will this be the last sexual assault perpetrated by a serviceman? Will heads roll? Will the Pope convert to Protestantism? Answers on the back of a postage stamp to the usual address.

Oil sheikhs will make Canada pay for supporting Israel, America

John Baird is a big, beefy, square-jawed, tough-talking bully boy. At least that's the image he projects. But the word around the world's second-coldest capital is that Johnny boy is as gay as 18 balloons. Still, if you're Prime Minister Harpoon, and you want a poster child for your new get-tough-with-the-Arabs / suck-up-to-the-Jews foreign policy, John's your, errr, man.

Ohhh yeah, Canada's fighting for freedom, right there on the front lines, alongside her erstwhile best friends, the Americans. When it comes to being ready to intervene in sandpits like Afghanistan, Libya and (maybe) Syria, the Canucks will gladly hold the American coat.

As for defending Israel against its numerous enemies, Israel has no better friend than Canada, says Foreign Minister Baird. Hey, Baird and his Bully-in-Chief Harper are even more pro-Israel than the Yanks. Let's not forget that Obama's middle name is "Hussein"!

And then there's the Disunited Nations. Historically Canada has been one of the biggest contributors (proportionally) to the funding of the UN, and involved in every peacekeeping mission from Korea through, errr, Somalia and Rwanda -- and look how successful those little interventions were. But no more.

After decades of toeing the liberal line about the sanctity, value and essential unimpeachability of the UN, the Harper government has finally said -- publicly -- that it's time for the West to stop kidding itself, and recognize the UN for the feckless, wasteful and corrupt talking shop that it really is. As well, the UN is anti-American and anti-Israeli too, therefore anti-Canada because "my friend's enemies are my enemies too".

Harper and Baird are actually quite right to be fed up with the UN, and the majority of Canadians -- outside of the Volvo liberals in Rosedale -- doubtless agree with the new policy. See "Baird's icy UN approach is just what many Canadians have ordered", by Michael Den Tandt in Canada's QMI papers.

But there are bound to be consequences. If you keep yanking the end of the turban, the turban-wearer is bound to notice and seek out a means of reprisal. Like blowing up a bridge linking Canada and the USA. Or something a little more diplomatic.

Which brings us to the International Civil Aviation Organization, the UN agency which sets international rules for airplane transportation. The ICAO has been headquartered in Montréal since 1947, and is the only United Nations organization to be based in Canada. Now, because of the Canucks' pro-Israel pro-America foreign policy [Is dis a policy? Ed.], the oily sheikhs have offered to build the ICAO a nice shiny new HQ building in... wait for it... Qatar.

Under its "new Harper government", Canada lost its last campaign for one of the non-permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, which at one time was a sure thing. This year they're not even going to throw the red and white tuque in the ring. And now the ICAO may well take wings towards a sunnier and more neutral (?) site.

Well, that's the price you pay for friendship. If you lie down with dogs, you're bound to get up with fleas.

Will America never learn? The persistence of bad foreign policy

Almost 237 years ago the United States of America started life through an armed rebellion against established authority -- the British monarchy -- which established a revolutionary new model of government "of the people, by the people and for the people". That remains a great and noble goal, and the fact that it has yet to be fully realized hasn't stopped US governments from trying to impose their model on the rest of the world.

Over the course of the last two centuries, successive administrations have adopted a policy of forcing other countries to adopt the US model, sometimes by persuasion and sometimes by conquest. Walt has a little list.

In 1812 the US Congress thought Canadians could hardly wait to join the new republic. Taking Canada from the British would be "merely a matter of marching", said Jefferson. Two years later, with the White House burned and the country nearly broke, Congress changed its mind.

The Mexican Invasion of the mid-19th century succeeded in annexing to the USA a large chunk of the southwest. For some reason, people from further south keep coming into "New Mexico" and neighbouring states, wanting to keep their language, customs and religion. Some folks, especially in Arizona, think it might be better to give the territory back to the Mexicans.

Then came the War Between the States, in which some states had the temerity to assert the right to leave the Union, a right which they thought had been guaranteed by the Constitution. They learned that once you're in the Hotel America, "you can check out, but you can never leave".

Having got that nasty business out of the way, and realizing that the Hispanics were a soft target, the USA embarked in 1898 on a truly imperial war against Spain. The net gain was a handful of tropical paradises (?) --- Puerto Rico, Guam and Philippines -- but hey, America was now a colonial power, just like Britain! The economic and other benefits were, errr, dubious.

What about the World Wars, I hear you ask. [Yes, what about the World Wars? Ed.] Is Walt saying the USA should have stayed out of the War to End All Wars...and the second War to End All Wars? Didn't America save the world for democracy? Well... No matter how many John Wayne movies you watched, America didn't bail out the Allies singlehandedly. And if the USA had come into the wars at the beginning rather than during the second act, the other colonial powers might have been accomplished faster and at considerably less economic and human cost.

But, you might argue, that's precisely why the USA was so quick to jump into Korea. Sorry, wrong again. Omar Bradley called the Korean War "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy". One lesson that might have been learned (but wasn't) is that if you're going to fight, use both hands!

Douglas MacArthur wanted to cross the Yalu and invade Communist China, possibly dropping the Big One for a quick and decisive victory. But "wiser men" in the Truman administration wouldn't let him, for fear of provoking a war with the Soviet Union, for which China was merely a proxy.

Apparently they didn't consider the possibility that the USSR wasn't as strong as it appeared, and might well have been defeated, sparing the world the 40 years of cold war that followed the Korean truce. Even the willingness to call it a draw may now be regarded as a mistake, for the war, which technically never ended, threatens to go ballistic -- literally -- at any moment.

Which brings us to Vietnam, which Pentagon types will tell you is the first war the US ever lost. (This ignores the War of 1812, but Washington's memory is short.) In The Rise of the Chinese Republic (McGraw-Hill, 1989) American historian Edwin P. Hoyt says:

The Americans did not learn fast. It took them still another war in Asia [Vietnam] to learn that what American leaders had said many years ago was true. No statesman with a lick of sense will let the country get involved in a land war in Asia.

There was another lesson that the Americans May not even yet have learned: Anyone who interferes in an indigenous revolution anywhere is a fool, and such interference is bound to fail. In China and in Vietnam the Americans tried to interfere. These actions cost them billions of dollars and far too many lives, and ultimately the revolutions succeeded in the face of American interference.

Mr. Hoyt wrote that in 1989. Since then we've had the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and (sort of) Libya. These theatres of war are all in Asia, although not the part Hoyt was thinking of. And they're all part of the Muslim world. Walt predicts that 100 years from now historians will lump them all together as "the Middle Eastern War" or "the Great War Against Islam". ("Crusades" has already been used.)

And still the USA cannot or will not learn. Now the Prez -- no Muslim he? -- is making noises (again) about taking action (nature unspecified) in Syria to overthrow a tyrannical dictator, make it safe for democracy, yada yada yada. Haven't we seen this movie before? (Canadians need not feel all smug and superior. "Call me Steve" Harper and his bumboy Baird are very vocal in their willingness to hold America's coat...at least until Uncle Sam's nose bleeds.)

Edwin Hoyt again:
The United States has run out of gas politically and philosophically. Any nation that converts from a dynamic economy to a service economy...finds that it loses that precious quality of initiative. The American government is still posturing itself in the world as the defender of the status quo. It is hard to consider a less dynamic and less appealing posture for a nation that once boasted of its revolutionary spirit.

Affirmative action: an idea whose time has come... and gone

Yesterday, in an update to "Hey whitey! You'll never work for the CBC again!", Walt mentioned that the cover story in this week's Economist is a briefing entitled "Time to scrap affirmative action". The "briefing" consists of three articles, examining the reasoning (?) behind and consequences of affirmative action policies in the USA, South Africa and Malaysia. Here are the titles and a few select quotes.

Unequal protection (on access to universities in the USA)

Lino Graglia, holder of an endowed chair at the University of Texas at Austin law school, thinks "lower[ing] standards to admit members of preferred groups" is "a bad idea".
Black law students fail the bar exam at four times the rate of whites.

A study...found that black students with average grades and test scores were almost three times more likely than Asians with similarly average qualifications to get into medical school.
More black than white high-school seniors aspire to science and engineering careers, but once in college twice as many black students as white abandon those challenging fields.

Universities can ensure diversity without race-based affirmative action. If [the Supreme Court's] ruling...helps bring America's experiment with well-intentioned discrimination in universities to a close...it will not be because the country has entered...a "post-racial" period. It has not. Blacks and Hispanics will still lag behind white in income and education levels, and still exceed whites in incarceration rates. But one set of injustices does not excuse another.

Fool's gold (on South Africa's black empowerment policy)

Black empowerment has not worked well. Nor will it end soon.

The white elite at the top of South African business has been joined by a sliver of super-rich blacks. ...Cyril Rampaphosa, a union-boss-turned-tycoon who is now the ANC's number two (and therefore perhaps the next president of South Africa), is worth $675 million.
The lot of poorer blacks, however, has not improved much.

The binding constraint on greater black participation in the economy is education.... It is no good setting quotas if there are not the skilled workers to fill them....

A Never Ending Policy (on policies favouring ethnic Malays in Malaysia)

The policies which favour ethnic Malays and other indigenes at the expense of Malaysia's ethnic Chinese and Indian citizens are an oddity. [These citizens] chafe at being second-class citizens. Quotas in university admissions are particularly resented. Chinese and Indian students flock to private and foreign [universities]. Those who leave often stay away.

Critics of [the policy] worry that it dulls [Malays'] incentives to excel. There is evidence of a skills gap.
A survey...found that 71% of Malaysians agreed that "race-based affirmative action" was "obsolete" and should be replaced with a "merit-based policy".

Further reading in this week's Economist, and by far the leader in online comments is this week's editorial, "Time to scrap affirmative action"

Note from Ed.: The Economist has a paywall, so the links may or may not work for you. If they don't, and the fallacy of affirmative action concerns you, consider buying a copy of the print edition, if you can find a newsstand or other store that still sells magazines.

Or you might think about subscribing. The Economist is the one and only magazine Walt actually pays to get. And no, we're not getting paid to say so.  

And one more note... This is Walt's 1500th post. Congratulatory messages may be written on the back of a cheque (or "check", if you're American) and sent to the usual address.

Walt handicaps the NHL playoffs -- Eastern Conference

Note from Ed.: Walt has been a little off his schedule for the last couple of weeks -- spring fever perhaps -- so didn't hand in this piece until after the first Western Conference games last night. Shame to anyone who thinks he waited to see which way the ice was tilting before making his fearless predictions.

The National Hockey League's shortened season ended on Sunday, with the big bad Bruins succumbing to the surprising Senators, so it wasn't until Monday that Walt was able to suss out the final standings and figure out which way to bet on the Stanley Cup playoffs. A few minutes ago Walt posted his best bets for the outcomes of the Western Conference series. Here's what's going to happen in the East.

Eastern Conference

Pittsburgh Penguins (1) vs New York Islanders (8) -- Can Isles' John Tavares win 4 games singlehandedly? Can Evgeni Nabokov stop the other Evgeni (Malkin) and Jerome Iginla and Sid the Kid from scoring? No to both questions. Penguins in 4 if Crosby plays the first game, otherwise in 5.

Montréal Canadiens (2) vs Ottawa Senators (7) -- Are the Habs for real? When does the crystal coach turn into a pumpkin? Naysayers saw the wheels coming off in April, but les Glorieux still finished first in their division. But Ottawa is healthy at last and should put up a good fight. Home ice advantage should see the Canadiens win the series in 7.

Washington Capitals (3) vs New York Rangers (6) -- Will Ovechkin stay hot or suffer a fit of pique if he can't put the puck by Henrik Lundqvist. Can Walt's favourite coach, John Tortorella, get the Rangers to do his will? Walt is amazed to see these teams in the playoffs at all. You pick `em, but I'll go with Rangers in 7, just because I hate Ovechkin.

Boston Bruins (4) vs Toronto Maple Leafs (5) -- Speaking of hate... Here we've got the two roughest, toughest teams in the East squaring off for what should be a fight-filled goonfest. Leafs lack playoff experience and have a couple of nice kids -- exactly -- in goal. Bruins will be wishing they still had Timmy Thomas. Leafs will win Game 4, that's all. Boston in 5.

Trust me. Lifetime pct .990. You're welcome.

Walt handicaps the NHL playoffs -- Western Conference

Note from Ed.: Walt has been a little off his schedule for the last couple of weeks -- spring fever perhaps -- so didn't hand in this piece until after the first Western Conference games last night. Shame to anyone who thinks he waited to see which way the ice was tilting before making his fearless predictions.

The National Hockey League's shortened season ended on Sunday, with the big bad Bruins succumbing to the surprising Senators, so it wasn't until Monday that Walt was able to suss out the final standings and figure out which way to bet on the Stanley Cup playoffs. Here's what's going to happen.

Western Conference

Chicago Blackhawks (1) vs Minnesota Wild (8) -- "Wild" is a stupid name for a sports team. Like "Storm" or "Jazz". There is virtually no facet of the game in which the Hawks -- the name is really "Black Hawks" but that's not PC any more -- do not excel. Even if goalie Nik Backstrom stands on his head, the Wild are going to be Tamed in 5 games, max.

Another note from Ed.: Backstrom was injured during the warmup last night, and the Wild lost 2-1 in OT. Backup goalie Harding may be too shell-shocked to play the second game.

Anaheim Ducks (2) vs Detroit Redwings (7) -- Another team with a dizzy Disney name vs another one with a previous non-PC name. (It was "Red Wings" before the McCarthy era!) The Ducks have an on-again-off-again offence, and predictions of the Wings' demise are premature, IMHO. Detroit in 7.

Vancouver Canucks (3) vs San Jose Sharks (6) -- Sharks had a better season than their sixth place finish suggests. Always the bridesmaids ["groomsmen"? Ed.] the Canucks are weak on the PK and in the faceoff circle, and still haven't sorted out their goaltending situation. If Luongo has to play, school's out! If San Jose wins the first game, they'll take the series in 7.

St. Louis Blues (4) vs Los Angeles Kings (5) -- Quick, who's going to win? Note the punctuation. Two strong goaltenders, but LA's Quick has been known to choke. [Walt admits he wrote this after last night's gaffe.] Two strong, hard-working teams. Perhaps better coaching by Ken Hitchcock of St. Louis. Really close but, on the strength of last night, let's say Blues in 7.  

Time for a coffee break, sponsored by Tim Horton's. Walt will be right back with powerful prognostications for the Eastern Conference playoffs.