When a person enters your country as a guest, commits a serious crime against somebody who lives there, they should, as a consequence, lose the privilege of remaining.
Holding this opinion will get you branded "far-right" extremist.
I suspect a fairly large percentage of Canadians would consider it common sense.
Living in Canada should be considered a privilege for non-citizens, and citizenship should mean something. It should be earned through some combination of productivity, commitment, integration and time.
None of this has anything to do with race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference.
In fact, Canada's old system demonstrated precisely how unnecessary those criteria are.
This is where the "far-right" branding becomes dangerous
The problem with reflexively branding every objection to the current system as "far right" isn't simply that the label eventually becomes meaningless.
There is a much worse consequence.
For starters,
you eliminate the legitimate middle.
People who simply say "immigration levels are too high" get called racists.
People who say temporary workers shouldn't displace Canadian teenagers from entry-level jobs are deemed xenophobes.
People who think convicted non-citizen criminals should be deported are branded as extremists.
Eventually some of those people stop caring what you call them.
That's when some truly unhinged egregores can arise.
I've been warning about this phenomenon for years, including in my book,
Unassailable: when legitimate grievances are declared impermissible, they don't just go away.
They go underground, they tend to mutate, and they resurface as increased polarization, siege mentality and, eventually, real extremism.
We're already seeing the emergence Canadian groups openly espousing ideas that really
are extreme,
including ethnic cleansing, as though removing entire populations based on their skin-colour is the only remaining solution to problems the political system refuses to confront honestly.
www.zerohedge.com
